Office orthodoxe en français - Paraclisis à la Mère de Dieu

Agni Parthene (St. Nectarios)- Valaam Brethren Choir

St Nectarios Oh Virgin pure (Agni Parthene) Eng Sub

O Virgin Pure

O Virgin Pure by St. Nectarios Plagal First Tone (Tone 5)   Refrain: O Rejoice, Bride Unwedded.   O Virgin pure, immaculate/ O Lady Theotokos
O Virgin Mother, Queen of all/ and fleece which is all dewy
More radiant than the rays of sun/ and higher than the heavens
Delight of virgin choruses/ superior to Angels.
Much brighten than the firmament/ and pure than the sun's light
More holy than the multitude/ of all the heav'nly armies.
O Rejoice, Bride Unwedded.
O Ever Virgin Mary/ of all the world, the Lady
O bride all pure, immaculate/ O Lady Panagia
O Mary bride and queen of all/ our cause of jubilation
Majestic maiden, Queen of all/ O our most holy Mother
More hon'rable than Cherubim/ beyond compare more glorious
than immaterial Seraphim/ and greater than angelic thrones.
O Rejoice, Bride Unwedded.
Rejoice, O son of Cherubim/ Rejoice, O hymn of angels
Rejoice, O ode of Seraphim/ the joy of the archangels
Rejoice, O peace and happiness/ the harbor of salvation
O sacred chamber of the Word/ flower of incorruption
Rejoice, delightful paradise/ of blessed life eternal
Rejoice, O wood and tree of life/ the fount of immortality
O Rejoice, Bride Unwedded.
I supplicate you, Lady/ now do I call upon you
And I beseech you, Queen of all/ I beg of you your favor
Majestic maiden, spotless one/ O Lady Panagia
I call upon you fervently/  O sacred, hallowed temple
Assist me and deliver me/ protect me from the enemy
And make me an inheritor/ of blessed life eternal.
O Rejoice, Bride Unwedded.
(Source and translation from: Holy Nativity Convent, Saxonburg, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.)

Mariä Himmelfahrt

Mariä Aufnahme in den Himmel, Mariä Himmelfahrt ist eines der ältesten Feste der Kirche. Es wird am 28. August gefeiert. Die Heilige Schrift berichtet über den Tod Mariens nichts. Aber es existiert eine kirchliche Überlieferung, die bis ins zweite Jahrhundert zurückreicht. Es ist uns nicht genau bekannt, wie lange die Allreine Jungfrau gelebt hat: die einen sagen 57 Jahre, andere 63, wieder andere nennen die Zahl 72; aber es ist klar, dass sie ein hohes Alter erreichte.
Nachdem der Herr in den Himmel aufgefahren war, lebte sie im Haus des heiligen Apostels Johannes des Theologen auf dem Berg Zion, im Südwesten von Jerusalem, wo sich die Burg von Jerusalem erhob. Von da ging sie oft auf den Ölberg, zum Ort der Himmelfahrt ihres Sohnes. Hier betete sie inständig in Abgeschiedenheit. Die Seele der Gottesmutter war immer von einem Wunsch erfüllt: endlich wieder das Antlitz ihres Sohnes zu schauen, in der Herrlichkeit des Himmels. Und eines Tages, während des Gebets erschien ihr der Erzengel Gabriel, welcher der Gottesmutter schon seit den ersten Tagen ihrer Kindheit diente und sie immer während ihres Lebens auf Erden beschützte. Der lichte und freudige Erzengel Gabriel überbrachte der Gottesmutter die schon lange von ihr ersehnte Kunde, dass sie in drei Tagen zu Christus, Gott, gehen werde. Der Erzengel sagte, sie solle mit Freude seine Worte annehmen, denn dies werde kein Tod sein, sondern der Übergang in ein Leben der Unsterblichkeit, zum ewigen König der Herrlichkeit.

Die ruhmreiche Gebieterin begann sich auf ihr Ende vorzubereiten. Zuerst berichtete sie alles dem von ihr, statt ihres Sohnes  angenommenen Lieblingsjunger Christi, Johannes. Dann erzählte die Gottesmutter auch allen übrigen von ihrem bevorstehenden Heimgang.
Vor ihrer Entschlafung wollte sie nochmals alle Apostel sehen, die in der ganzen Welt verstreut waren um zu predigen. Der heilige Johannes der Theologe schickte sofort Boten zum heiligen Jakobus, dem Apostel und Bischof von Jerusalem, und auch zu allen Verwandten und Bekannten und benachrichtigte sie über den bevorstehenden Heimgang der Gottesmutter.
Der heilige Jakobus beeilte sich, davon alle Christen zu verständigen, die nicht nur in Jerusalem, sondern auch in der Umgebung und sogar in anderen Städten wohnten. So versammelte sich bei der Gottesmutter mit dem Bischof von Jerusalem eine Vielzahl von Menschen, Verwandten und gläubigen Christen.
Die Allreine Gebieterin vermachte ihre Gewänder zwei armen Witwen, die ihr Zeit ihres Lebens gedient hatten, und bat, ihren Leib im Garten Getsemani zu begraben, am Fuße des Ölbergs, unweit von Jerusalem. Dort befanden sich das Grab Joachims und Annas, ihrer Eltern, und auch das Grab Josefs, mit dem sie verlobt gewesen war. Diese Gräber befanden sich am Rande des Tales Josafat, das zwischen Jerusalem und dem Ölberg lag. In diesem Tal wurden für gewöhnlich arme Bürger bestattet.
Während die Gottesmutter diese Anweisungen gab, vernahm man plötzlich ein Tosen, das an Donnergrollen erinnerte, und Wolken hüllten das Haus Johannes des Theologen ein. Gemäß Gottes Befehl ergriffen Engel die Apostel in den verschiedenen Ländern, wohin sie gegangen waren, um das Evangelium zu predigen. und brachten sie nach Jerusalem zum Haus der Gottesmutter. Die Apostel freuten sich, als sie einander sahen, waren aber unschlüssig, wozu sie der Herr versammelt hatte. Der heilige Johannes der Theologe erklärte ihnen, dass für die Gottesmutter die Zeit gekommen sei, zum Herrn zu gehen.
Am dritten Tag, in der dritten Stunde erfüllte ein göttliches Licht das Zimmer, in dem die Gottesmutter auf ihren Heimgang wartete. In diesem Licht kam der Herr Jesus Christus selbst mit einer Vielzahl von Engeln und Erzengeln herab.
„Dann habe Maria ihre Seele in die Hände des Sohnes übergeben, der die Seele seiner Mutter in den Himmel entrückte“, beschreibt  der Kirchenvater Johann von Damaskus (675 – 749) in seiner Predigt zu Mariä Heimgang. Und später, “Maria sei in der Gegenwart aller Apostel gestorben, aber ihr Grab sei leer gewesen, als es auf Anfrage des hl. Thomas geöffnet wurde.”
Der Apostel Thomas, der nicht am Begräbnis teilgenommen hatte, kam erst am dritten Tag nach der Entschlafung der Mutter Gottes nach Jerusalem. Er wollte die Verstorbene nochmals sehen und ließ deshalb das Grab öffnen, doch dieses war leer. In diesem Augenblick habe ein Engelchor zu singen begonnen und die Gottesmutter sei erschienen.
Eine andere Überlieferung berichtet, Maria sei den Aposteln am dritten Tag in dem Moment erschienen, als sie beim Herrenmahl das Brot erhoben. Deshalb wird bei den Griechen während des Muttergotteshymnus in der Liturgie jeweils ein Opferbrot zu Ehren der Jungfrau geweiht.
Das Fest Maria Entschlafung wird am zweiten oder dritten Tag mit einer besondere Prozession beendet. Sie wird “Begräbnis der Gottesgebärerin” genannt. Am Ende der Nachtwache, während der das Grabtuch mit der Darstellung der Gottesmutter in der Mitte der Kirche liegt, wird es in einer Prozession um die Kirche getragen und in den Altar gebracht. Dieser Ritus wird in Analogie zu der Prozession begangen, die in Jerusalem am Grab der Gottesmutter in Getsemani stattfindet. Die Farbe der liturgischen Gewänder ist Blau. Eine besondere Tradition dieses Festes ist ein üppiger Blumenschmuck.

O HERRLICHER ABSCHIED, DEM DIE ANKUNFT BEI GOTT FOLGT

Der hochwürdige Chor der weisen Apostel wurde auf wunderbare Weise versammelt, um ruhmvoll deinen allreinen Leib zu beerdigen,hochgepriesene Gottesgebärerin.

Auch die Scharen der Engel lobsangen mit ihnen, um deinen Hinübergang voll Ehrfurcht zu verherrlichen, den wir im Glauben feiern.
Unbefleckt war bei der Empfängnis deine Mutterschaft, Ohne Verwesung war der Zustand des Todes
bei deiner Entschlafung. Beide Wunder fließen in eins, O Gottesgebärerin.
Wie konnte diejenige, die keinen Mann erkannte, zur Nährerin eines Kindes werden und dabei jungfraulich bleiben?
Wie konnte die Mutter Gottes einer Toten gleich einbalsamiert werden?
Deshalb rufen wir dir mit dem Engel zu: «Gegrüßt seist du, voller Gnade!»
David möge uns künden, was das für ein Fest ist.
Diejenige, die er einst im Buch der Psalmen besungen als Tochter Gottes und Jungfrau,
sie ist in die Wohnungen da oben emporgehoben worden durch Christus,
der unbefleckt aus ihr Fleisch angenommen hatte.
Deshalb freuen sich auch die Mütter mit den Töchtern und die Bräute Christi, indem sie rufen: «Gegrüßt seist du, die du hinübergegangen bist ins himmlische Reich!»

(Ikona “Gottesmutter Uspenije. Texten: Johann von D., R.Hotz, A.Lorgus)

The Supplicatory Prayer to the Most Holy Theotokos

  O undefiled, untainted, uncorrupted, most pure, chaste Virgin, Thou Bride of God and Sovereign Lady, who didst unite the Word of God to mankind through thy most glorious birth giving, and hast linked the apostate nature of our race with the heavenly; who art the only hope of the hopeless, and the helper of the struggling, the ever-ready protection of them that hasten unto thee, and the refuge of all Christians: Do not shrink with loathing from me a sinner, defiled, who with polluted thoughts, words, and deeds have made myself utterly unprofitable, and through slothfulness of mind have become a slave to the pleasures of life. But as the Mother of God Who loveth mankind, show thy love for mankind and mercifully have compassion upon me a sinner and prodigal, and accept my supplication, which is offered to thee out of my defiled mouth; and making use of thy motherly boldness, entreat thy Son and our Master and Lord that He may be pleased to open for me the bowels of His lovingkindness and graciousness to mankind, and, disregarding my numberless offenses, will turn me back to repentance, and show me to be a tried worker of His precepts. And be thou ever present unto me as merciful, compassionate and well disposed; in the present life be thou a fervent intercessor and helper, repelling the assaults of adversaries and guiding me to salvation, and at the time of my departure taking care of my miserable soul, and driving far away from it the dark countenances of the evil demons; lastly, at the dreadful day of judgment delivering me from torment eternal and showing me to be an heir of the ineffable glory of thy Son and our God; all of which may I attain, O my Sovereign Lady, most holy Theotokos, in virtue of thine intercession and protection, through the grace and love to mankind of thine only begotten Son, our Lord and God and Savior, Jesus Christ, to Whom is due all glory, honor and worship, together with His unoriginate Father, and His Most Holy and good and life creating Spirit, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen.

– Small Compline: The Supplicatory Prayer to the Most Holy Theotokos

Gesegnetes Gottesmutterfasten!

Mit dem neuen Kalender beginnt das Gottesmutterfasten am 1. August, mit dem alten am 14. August. 

Mit dieser Fastenperiode bereiten wir uns uns auf das große Kirchenfest der Entschlafung der allheiligen Gottesmutter vor (15/28 August).

Generelle Anmerkungen zum Fasten: 

Ein Kalender beinhaltet Angaben zu den Fastenregeln für jeden Tag des Jahres. Dort findet der Gläubiger die wichtigsten Angaben über die Fasten, die dem Typikon entstammen.
1
An den Tagen, an denen jegliche Angabe fehlt, sind wie in den “fastenfreien Wochen” alle Speisen erlaubt - die einzige Ausnahme davon bildet die Butterwoche, in deren Verlauf kein Fleisch gegessen wird.
2
Dort wo nur “Fastentag” angezeigt ist, bedeutet dies strenges Fasten, d.h. Abstinenz von Fleisch, Eiern, allen Milchprodukten, Fisch,Wein und Öl. An diesen Tagen besteht der Speiseplan also praktisch nur aus Gemüse, das ohne Öl gekocht oder gedünstet wird, Kartoffeln und Brot, wobei gewöhnlich den Hülsenfrüchten (Erbsen, Bohnen jeder Art, Linsen u.ä.) besondere Bedeutung zukommt.
3
Dort, wo unter der Bemerkung “Fastentag” noch der Zusatz “Wein und Öl erlaubt” erscheint, ist das Fasten wegen eines Feiertags oder einer Vigil durch die Zulassung dieser beiden Speisen erleichtert. Bei größeren Feiertagen wird “Fisch,Wein und Öl erlaubt”, was jedoch immer noch alle Fleisch-, Eier- und Milchprodukte ausschließt.
4
Für die Große Fastenzeit und das Gottesmutter-Fasten gilt eine einheitliche Regelung: Wein und Öl sind außer einigen Festtagen nur samstags und sonntags erlaubt. Eine andere einheitliche Regel gilt für das Apostel- und das Weihnachtsfasten. Hier ist samstags und sonntags Fisch erlaubt, dienstags und donnerstags kein Fisch, aber Wein und Öl, montags, mittwochs und freitags weder Öl noch Wein, es sei denn, auf diese Tage fällt ein Feiertag, für den solches besonders angegeben wird. Während des Weihnachtsfastens wird die Fastenregel nur an den Tagen des unmittelbaren Vorfestes vom 20. bis 24. strenger - hier ist selbst samstags und sonntags kein Fisch erlaubt. In diesen beiden Fastenzeiten schreibt das Typikon für Laien die gleichen Regeln vor wie für Mönche, nämlich außer Mittwoch und Freitag ist zu Ehren der körperlosen Engel auch der Montag ein Fastentag.
5
Zu einigen lokalen Besonderheiten ist zu sagen, daß z.B. amPatronatsfest einer Kirche oder eines Klosters, auch wenn dieses auf einen Mittwoch oder Freitag fällt, Fisch erlaubt ist. Gewöhnlich wird Wein und Öl an solchen Tagen erlaubt, wenn ein Heiliger gefeiert wird, zu dessen Ehren die große Doxologie oder Polyeleos gesungen wird. Grundsätzlich liegt der Sinn der Fastenregeln im Typikon darin, daß die Mühen, die wir zur Ehrung eines Heiligen oder eines Festes auf uns nehmen, durch entsprechende Erleichterung der Askese belohnt werden.

Wenn man sich an die Einhaltung der Fastenregeln gewöhnt hat, wird die Erlaubnis von Öl mit der Speise und etwas Wein wirklich zu einer Quelle des Trostes und einer Grundlage für körperliche Stärkung.

"313 kurzgefasste Vorschriften" aus Ausgewählte Schriften des heiligen Basilius des Grossen. 

140. Frage: Ist Jemand im Genusse schädlicher Speisen unmäßig gewesen und in Folge dessen in eine Krankheit gefallen, ob man Den verpflegen solle.

Antwort. Die Unmäßigkeit ist offenbar eine Sünde, und man muß besonders darauf bedacht sein, wie dieses Laster geheilt wird. Denn indem der gütige Gott zeigen will, ein wie großes Übel sei, sich nicht zu beherrschen, so läßt er die Seele oft auch in solche Dinge, welche dem Leibe schädlich sind, in das Laster der Unmäßigkeit fallen, ob sie wohl nicht durch die leibliche Krankheit, die sie in Folge der Unmäßigkeit erduldet, zur Einsicht ihres Fehlers gelangen und zur Enthaltsamkeit in allen Dingen gebracht werden könne. Jedoch ist es vernünftig und human, Denen, welche sich durch Unmäßigkeit geschadet haben, schnelle körperliche Hilfe angedeihen zu lassen, aber mit Umsicht und Vorsicht, damit wir nicht bei der Heilung des Körpers die Seele ohne Heilung lassen. Sieht man daher, daß ein Solcher aus der Heilung des Körpers verständig Lehre annimmt und auch auf die Gebrechen der Seele Bedacht nimmt, so muß man ihm körperlichen Beistand leisten. Findet man aber, daß er bei der Heilung des Körpers die der Seele vernachlässigt, so ist es besser, einen Solchen den Schmerzen, die er durch seine Unmäßigkeit leidet, zu überlassen, ob er etwa mit der Zeit zur Erkenntniß seiner selbst und der ewigen Strafen gelange und für die Gesundheit der Seele Sorge trage. „Denn wenn wir gerichtet werden, werden wir von dem Herrn gezüchtigt, damit wir nicht mit dieser Welt verdammt werden.“

Quelle: www.sobor.de

The Ort­ho­dox Vene­ra­tion of The Mot­her of God - Saint John of Shang­hai & San Francisco

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 the 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 des­cen­dants 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 God­Jo­a­chim 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 into 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 sti­cheron 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 obe­di­ent 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 the life which the Mot­her of God led, 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 ori­gi­nal 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 I I 8th 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 2:21–5 1). 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 the flesh” (St. John Chryso­stom, Com­men­tary on John, Homily 2 1). Mary under­stood this and heard the word of God and kept it (Luke11:27, 28). As no other per­son) She had the same fee­lings as Christ (Phil. 2:5),unmur­muringly 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 to 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 with 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, fee­der of the hungry, con­so­la­tion of tra­vel­lers, har­bor of the storm-tossed, visi­ta­tion of the sick, pro­tection and inter­ces­sor for the infirm, staff of old age, Thou art the Mot­her of God on high, O 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” (Kon­takion of Dor­mi­tion), “saving the world by Thine uncea­sing prayer” (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).

http://ortodoks.dk/

Zeal Not Accor­ding to Know­ledge (Romans 10:2) - Imma­cu­late Con­cep­tion of the Vir­gin Mary

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 rebuked, as well as those who denied Her Ever­vir­gi­nity, 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 rea­litydenied 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 ninth 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 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 [of Swe­den], 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 Eastand 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 clearly 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 tea­ching 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 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 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 (cf. 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 pre­vailagainst 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 ourCoRe­demptress.

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. 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), CC a cre­a­ture, but also no lon­ger a cre­a­ture” (P. 19 1). 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 Cal­vi­nism, 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 not 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. there­fore My arm deli­ve­red them (Is. 63:5).” (St. Ambrose, “Con­cer­ning the Upbrin­ging of the Vir­gin and the Ever-Virginity of Holy Mary,” ch. 7).

This 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 bir­t­h­gi­ving, 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 Con­cupi­s­cence”). “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, ibid., Book 2: “Against Julianus”).

Ano­t­her renow­ned tea­cher of the Church, espe­ci­ally reve­red in the West, Bles­sed 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 (Jer. 1:5)- no mat­ter how much these might or might not give us 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 pos­sible 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” (Bles­sed 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 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 birth wit­hout knowing pain. But what does one yet need to add to these dig­ni­ties? People say that one must revere the con­cep­tion which pre­ce­ded the glo­rious birth-giving; for if the con­cep­tion had not pre­ce­ded, the birth-giving also would not have been glo­rious. But what would one say if any­one for the same rea­son should demand the same kind of vene­ra­tion of the fat­her and mot­her of Holy Mary? One might equally demand the same for Her grand­pa­rents and great-grandparents, to infi­nity. More­over, how can there not be sin in the place where there was con­cupi­s­cence? All the more, let one not say that the Holy Vir­gin was con­cei­ved of the Holy Spi­rit and not of man. I say deci­si­vely that the Holy Spi­rit des­cen­ded upon Her, but not that He came with Her.”

“I say that the Vir­gin Mary could not be san­cti­fied before Her con­cep­tion, inas­much as She did not exist. if, all the more, She could not be san­cti­fied in the moment of Her con­cep­tion by rea­son of the sin which is inse­pa­rable from con­cep­tion, then it remains to believe that She was san­cti­fied after She was con­cei­ved in the womb of Her mot­her. This san­cti­fi­ca­tion, if it anni­hi­la­tes sin, makes holy Her birth, but not Her con­cep­tion. No one is given the right to be con­cei­ved in san­ctity; only the Lord Christ was con­cei­ved of the Holy Spi­rit, and He alone is holy from His very con­cep­tion. Exclu­ding Him, it is to all the des­cen­dants of Adam that must be refer­red that which one of them says of him­self, both out of a fee­ling of humi­lity and in ack­now­led­ge­ment of the truth: Behold I was con­cei­ved in iniqui­ties (Ps. 50:7). How can one demand that this con­cep­tion be holy, when it was not the work of the Holy Spi­rit, not to men­tion that it came from con­cupi­s­cence? The Holy Vir­gin, of course, rejects that glory which, evi­dently, glo­ri­fies sin. She can­not in any way justify a novelty inven­ted in spite of the tea­ching of the Church, a novelty which is the mot­her of impr­u­dence, the sister of unbe­lief, and the daugh­ter of ligh­t­min­de­d­ness” (Ber­nard, Epi­stle 174; cited, as were the refe­ren­ces from Bles­sed Augustine, from Lebe­dev). The above-cited words clearly reveal both the novelty and the absur­dity of the new dogma of the Roman church.

The tea­ching of the com­plete sin­les­sness of the Mot­her of God (1) does not cor­re­spond to Sacred Scrip­ture, where there is repe­a­tedly men­tio­ned the sin­les­sness of the One Medi­a­tor between God and man, the man Jesus Christ (I Tim. 2:5); and in Him is no sin U John 3:5); Who did no sin, neit­her was guile found in His mouth (I Peter 2:22); One that hath been in all points temp­ted like as we are, yet wit­hout sin (Heb. 4:15); Him Who knew no sin, He made to be sin on our behalf (II Cor. 5:2 1). But con­cer­ning the rest of men it is said, Who is pure of defile­ment? No one who has lived a single day of his life on earth (Job 14:4). God com­men­deth His own love toward us in that, while we were yet sin­ners, Christ died for us If, while we were ene­mies, we were recon­ci­led to God through the death of His Son, much more, being recon­ci­led, shall we be saved by His life (Rom. 5:8–10).

(2) This tea­ching con­tra­di­cts also Sacred Tra­di­tion, which is con­tai­ned in numerous Patri­stic wri­tings, where there is men­tio­ned the exal­ted san­ctity of the Vir­gin Mary from Her very birth, as well as Her cle­an­sing by the Holy Spi­rit at Her con­cep­tion of Christ, but not at Her own con­cep­tion by Anna. “There is none wit­hout stain before Thee, even though his life be but a day, save Thee alone, Jesus Christ our God, Who didst appear on earth wit­hout sin, and through Whom we all trust to obtain mercy and the remis­sion of sins” (St. Basil the Great, Third Prayer of Ves­pers of Pen­tecost). “But when Christ came through a pure, vir­gi­nal, unwed­ded, God-fearing, unde­fi­led Mot­her wit­hout wed­lock and wit­hout fat­her, and inas­much as it befit­ted Him to be born, He puri­fied the female nature, rejected the bit­ter Eve and overt­hrew the laws of the flesh” (St. Gre­gory the The­o­lo­gian, “In Pra­ise of Vir­gi­nity”). Howe­ver, even then, as Sts. Basil the Great and John Chryso­stom speak of this, She was not pla­ced in the state of being unable to sin, but con­ti­nued to take care for Her salva­tion and overcame all temp­ta­tions (St. John Chryso­stom, Com­men­tary on John, Homily 85; St. Basil the Great, Epi­stle 160).

(3) The tea­ching that the Mot­her of God was puri­fied before Her birth, so that from Her might be born the Pure Christ, is mea­ning­less; because if the Pure Christ could be born only if the Vir­gin might be born pure, it would be neces­sary that Her parents also should be pure of ori­gi­nal sin, and they again would have to be born of puri­fied parents, and going furt­her in this way, one would have to come to the con­clu­sion that Christ could not have become incar­nate unless all His ance­stors in the flesh, right up to Adam inclu­sive, had been puri­fied before­hand of ori­gi­nal sin. But then there would not have been any need for the very Incar­na­tion of Christ, since Christ came down to earth in order to anni­hi­late sin.

(4) The tea­ching that the Mot­her of God was pre­ser­ved from ori­gi­nal sin, as likewise the tea­ching that She was pre­ser­ved by God’s grace from per­so­nal sins,makes God unmerci­ful and unjust; because if God could pre­serve Mary from sin and purify Her before Her birth, then why does He not purify other men before their birth, but rat­her lea­ves them in sin? It fol­lows likewise that God saves men apart from their will, pre­de­ter­mi­ning certain ones before their birth to salvation.

(5) This tea­ching, which see­m­ingly has the aim of exal­ting the Mot­her of God, in rea­lity com­ple­tely denies all Her vir­tues. After all, if Mary, even in the womb of Her mot­her, when She could not even desire anyt­hing eit­her good or evil, was pre­ser­ved by God’s grace from every impurity, and then by that grace was pre­ser­ved from sin even after Her birth, then in what does Her merit con­sist? If She could have been pla­ced in the state of being unable to sin, and did not sin, then for what did God glo­rify Her? if She, wit­hout any effort, and wit­hout having any kind of impul­ses to sin, remai­ned pure, then why is She crow­ned more than eve­ry­one else? There is no victory wit­hout an adversary.

The righ­teo­us­ness and san­ctity of the Vir­gin Mary were mani­fe­sted in the fact that She, being “human with pas­sions like us,” so loved God and gave Her­self over to Him, that by Her purity She was exal­ted high above the rest of the human race. For this, having been forek­nown and fore­cho­sen, She was vou­chs­a­fed to be puri­fied by the Holy Spi­rit Who came upon Her, and to con­ceive of Him the very Saviour of the world. The tea­ching of the grace-given sin­les­sness of the Vir­gin Mary denies Her victory over temp­ta­tions; from a victor who is worthy to be crow­ned with crowns of glory, this makes Her a blind instru­ment of God’s Provi­dence.

It is not an exal­ta­tion and gre­a­ter glory, but a belitt­le­ment of Her, this “gift” which was given Her by Pope Pius IX and all the rest who think they can glo­rify the Mot­her of God by seeking out new truths. The Most Holy Mary has been so much glo­ri­fied by God Him­self, so exal­ted is Her life on earth and Her glory in hea­ven, that human inven­tions can­not add anyt­hing to Her honor and glory. That which people them­sel­ves invent only obscu­res Her Face from their eyes. Bret­hren, take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through phi­los­ophy and vain deceit, after the tra­di­tion of men, after the rudi­ments of the world, and not after Christ, wrote the Apostle Paul by the Holy Spi­rit (Col. 2:8).

Such a “vain deceit” is the tea­ching of the Imma­cu­late Con­cep­tion by Anna of the Vir­gin Mary, which at first sight exalts, but in actual fact belitt­les Her. Like every lie, it is a seed of the “fat­her of lies” (John 8:44), the devil, who has suc­ce­e­ded by it in

bla­sp­heme the Vir­gin Mary. Toget­her with it there should also be rejected all the other tea­chings which have come from it or are akin to it. The stri­ving to exalt the Most Holy Vir­gin to an equa­lity with Christ ascri­bing to Her mater­nal tor­tu­res at the Cross an equal sig­ni­fi­cance with the suf­fe­rings of Christ, so that the Rede­e­mer and “Co-Redemptress” suf­fe­red equally, accor­ding to the tea­ching of the Papists, or that “the human nature of the Mot­her of God in hea­ven toget­her with the God-Man Jesus jointly reveal the full image of man” (Archpri­est S. Bul­gakov, The Unburnt Bush, p. 141)-is likewise a vain deceit and a seduction of phi­los­ophy. In Christ Jesus there is neit­her male nor female (Gal. 3:28), and Christ has rede­e­med the whole human race; there­fore at His Resur­rection equally did “Adam dance for joy and Eve rejoice” (Sun­day Kon­takia of the First and Third Tones), and by His Ascen­sion did the Lord raise up the whole of human nature.

Likewise, that the Mot­her of God is a “com­ple­ment of the Holy Tri­nity” or a “fourth Hypost­a­sis”; that “the Son and the Mot­her are a reve­la­tion of the Fat­her through the Second and Third Hypost­a­ses”; that the Vir­gin Mary is “a cre­a­ture, but also no lon­ger a creature”-all this is the fruit of vain, false wis­dom which is not satis­fied with what the Church has held from the time of the Apost­les, but stri­ves to glo­rify the Holy Vir­gin more than God has glo­ri­fied Her.

Thus are the words of St. Epip­ha­nius of Cyprus ful­fil­led: “Certain sen­se­less ones in their opi­nion about the Holy Ever­Vir­gin have stri­ven and are stri­ving to put Her in place of God” (St. Epip­ha­nius, “Against the Anti­di­ko­ma­rio­ni­tes”). But that which is offe­red to the Vir­gin in sen­se­les­sness, instead of pra­ise of Her, turns out to be bla­sp­hemy; and the All-Immaculate One rejects the lie, being the Mot­her ofTruth (John 14:6).

http://ortodoks.dk/

The Life History of the All-holy Virgin Mary from the Lord's Ascension Until Her Death - By Protopresbyter Michael Polsky

1.The Accord of All with the Lord's Mother (Acts 1: 14). "Then returned they (from the mount of the Ascension) ... and they went up into an upper room, where abode (all the Apostles).... These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with certain of the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brethren."

After the Lord's Ascension there came about a fundamental change in the mutual relations of all the first believers. The Holy Apostles had been inseparably close to the Lord, and after them there often followed many women (Luke 8:1-3; Matt. 27:55). Now the orphaned community is all gathered together, not travelling, and they are to be found in one place. And the Mother of Jesus and His brothers are with them. The "unbelief," doubts and uneasiness of His brothers are at an end, as is their closeness according to the flesh with the Great Man. There comes instead a general concord, which is now expressed in prayer and supplication. There were many women among then, for the company numbered about "an hundred and twenty" (Acts 1:15), but only one of them is mentioned by name, the Mother of the Lord, and this even though formerly several of them were accounted for by name. It is fitting that now she alone has a mention, just as it is that earlier in His lifetime she was not mentioned in the number of the female companions of the Lord. That was not her time; she observed her Son from afar; she saw Him at home every time He was in His hometown; then she came to His Cross. Now she, as an active member of the Christian community, is together with the Apostles and all the community. This is why she alone is mentioned here. This fact was therefore worthy of note. The Lord is not with them in the flesh; the Mother of the Lord is. There came about an exceptional solidarity within the whole community and the Lord's Mother took her own appropriate place therein, putting her prayers and supplications behind the general cause. The concord of all was now a concord with the Mother of the Lord in the strength of her participation in the common assembly.

2. The Glorious Dormition of the All-holy Virgin Mary. Several years after the Ascension of the Lord into heaven, at a time when the All-holy Virgin was fervently praying to the Lord that she might "be absent from the body and be present with the Lord," she sighed "desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven" (2 Cor. 5:1-8)—for, to whom would it be more onerous than to her to be separated from the beloved Son?—then the Archangel Gabriel, her heavenly minister, appeared to her with the good tidings that in three days she would indeed be reunited with her Divine Son. The Mother of the Lord, God's dwelling place on earth, would now herself be translated to God's heavenly dwelling place.

The holy Apostles, the eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, of God in the flesh, would behold the demise of her, whose flesh God Himself had born. And in the same way as the holy Apostle Philip, through the prompting of an Angel, went down on the way to Gaza, and was subsequently"caught away" by the Angel and "found at Azotus" (Acts 8:26, 39, 40), so also all the holy Apostles, who were dispersed throughout the world, were, by the Divine omnipotence, caught up from their various places and were gathered together at the death-bed of the All-holy Theotokos.

But the death of the All-holy Virgin was exactly a falling asleep [dormition]: it was without the slightest heaviness or conflict at the separation of her soul from the body that she, as it were, fell asleep. The Lord Himself, appearing with a company of the holy Angels and of the spirits of the righteous, received her immaculate soul. The Son repaid His debt to the mother and received her unto Himself in Heaven, as she had received Him unto herself on earth. The One Who was Himself mortal in the flesh which He had received from her, being a man, willed that she should die and surrender her soul into His hands.

However, the physical nature of mankind, which in Christ had resurrected, could not be wholly given over to death and corruption in the one from whom the Lord had received that nature.

Like her Son, she was subject to the natural law in her death, and she dies with her Son, so that she might with Him rise again unto all eternity Being a heaven herself, she is taken up to heaven; as the throne of God, she goes to God's throne. Her resurrection and ascension into heaven were assured, for she was not lesser than the Prophets Enoch and Elias, who also have not seen corruption and the dissolution of their bodies. And it was not possible that the Lord would permit the dissolution of the most pure and most sanctified divine temple of His Mother, when He Himself had in three days raised up in Himself that temple which was destroyed in Him (John 2:19). Thus the Lord, Who rose on the third day, raised the All-holy Virgin on the third day.

On this day, at the request of the Apostle Thomas, who had arrived late for the repose and burial of the Mother of God, her tomb was opened, but within the body of the Virgin was not to be found. The evening of the very same day, the holy Apostles rose from table and, according to the sacred custom, took a portion which was set aside in the Lord's honour, and they began to glorify the All-holy Trinity and desired to intone "All-holy Trinity" or "Lord Jesus Christ, help us," when they saw the All-holy Virgin in the air with a multitude of Angels, and she spoke to them: "Rejoice! I am ever with you!" The Apostles exclaimed "All-holy Theotokos, help us."

Thus the life of the All-holy Virgin Mary from her birth until the Annunciation is known to Christ's Holy Church from two very important facts: the circumstances of her birth itself and her entry into the Temple and her upbringing therein. And, after the Ascension of the Lord, we know of her repose.

This pure, sacred Church Tradition has been kept as being in complete accord with the spirit and the letter of Sacred Scripture, and has been immovably established in the Church of Christ by the annual festal commemorations on the 8th September (Birth of the All-holy Virgin), 21st November (her Entry into the Temple), and 15th August (Dormition).

http://orthodoxinfo.com/

DIE ABBILDUNG DER ALLHEILIGEN GOTTESGEBÄRERIN

Vom Erlöser Jesus Christus abgesehen, gibt es in der Christlichen Ikonographie keine Figur, die so oft abgebildet wurde, so das Herz entflammte, so das Talent der Künstler aller Zeiten herausforderte, wie die Person der Allheiligen Jungfrau. Zu allen Zeiten versuchten die Maler der Ikonen, dem Angesicht der Gottesgebärerin all die Schönheit, Zartheit, Würde und Größe zu verleihen, zu welcher ihre Einbildungskraft fähig war.

Die Gottesmutter erscheint auf russischen Ikonen immer in Trauer, aber diese Traurigkeit ist unterschiedlich: entweder besorgt oder lichthaft, doch stets voller seelischer Klarheit, Weisheit und großer geistiger Kraft. Die Gottesmutter kann feierlich den Gottesknaben der Welt, „darbieten“, kann liebevoll den Sohn an Sich drücken oder Ihn leicht stützen – Sie ist immer erfüllt von Gnade, verehrt ihr göttliches Kind und unterwirft sich demütig der Unausweichlichkeit des Opfers. Lyrik, Aufleuchten, Welffremdheit – das sind die Hauptwesenszüge der Abbildung der Gottesgebärerin auf russischen Ikonen.

Als verheiratete Frau trägt die Allreine auf dem Haupt einen Schleier, welcher auf die Schultern herabfällt, nach dem Brauch der jüdischen Frauen der damaligen Zeit. Dieser Schleier oder Umhang, wird im Griechischen Omophor genannt. Das Omophor wird gewöhnlich rot gemalt (Leidenssymbol und Erinnerung königlicher Herkunft). Das Untergewand wird gewöhnlich blau gemalt (Zeichen himmlischer Reinheit und vollkommener Menschheit).

Ein weiteres wichtiges Detail der Kleidung der Gottesgebärerin sind die „Porutschi“ (Armschützer). Die „Porutschi“ sind Teile der Priestergewandung. Auf den Ikonen ist dies das Symbol des gemeinsamen Dienstes der Gottesmutter (und in ihrer Person – der ganzen Kirche) mit dem Hohenpriester Christus.

Auf Stirn und Schultern der Gottesgebärerin werden in der Regel drei goldene Sterne abgebildet. Vergleichbarer Schmuck, aus Metall gefertigt, war in der Antike verbreitet. Auf den Ikonen erscheinen die Sterne als Zeichen dafür, dass die Gottesgebärerin vor der Geburt, in der Geburt und nach der Geburt Jungfrau blieb. Darüber hinaus sind die drei Sterne das Symbol der Heiligen Dreiheit. Auf einigen Ikonen verdeckt die Figur des Christuskindes einen der Sterne, was somit symbolisiert die Menschwerdung der zweiten Person der Heiligen Dreiheit – Gott, den Logos.

Es gibt fünf Grundtypen für die Darstellung der Gottesmutter: das sind “Die Betende”, “Die Wegweiserin“, „Die Trösterin“, „Die Allbarmherzige”, Die Fürbittende“.

http://www.pokrov.de/

Bright Friday: The Life Giving Spring of the Mother of God

Today we commemorate the Life-Giving Spring of the Most Holy Theotokos.

                       

There once was a beautiful church in Constantinople dedicated to the Mother of God, which had been built in the fifth century by the holy Emperor Leo the Great (January 20) in the Seven Towers district.

Before becoming emperor, Leo was walking in a wooded area where he met a blind man who was thirsty and asked Leo to help him find water. Though he agreed to search for water, he was unable to find any. Suddenly, he heard a voice telling him that there was water nearby. He looked again, but still could not find the water. Then he heard the voice saying “Emperor Leo, go into the deepest part of the woods, and you will find water there. Take some of the cloudy water in your hands and give it to the blind man to drink.Then take the clay and put it on his eyes. Then you shall know who I am.” Leo obeyed these instructions, and the blind man regained his sight. Later, St Leo became emperor, just as the Theotokos had prophesied.

Leo built a church over the site at his own expense, and the water continued to work miraculous cures. Therefore, it was called “The Life-Giving Spring.”

After the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, the church was torn down by the Moslems, and the stones were used to build a mosque. Only a small chapel remained at the site of the church. Twenty-five steps led down into the chapel, which had a window in the roof to let the light in. The holy Spring was still there, surrounded by a railing.

After the Greek Revolution in 1821, even this little chapel was destroyed and the Spring was buried under the rubble. Christians later obtained permission to rebuild the chapel, and work began in July of 1833. While workmen were clearing the ground, they uncovered the foundations of the earlier church. The Sultan allowed them to build not just a chapel, but a new and beautiful church on the foundations of the old one.

Construction began on September 14, 1833, and was completed on December 30, 1834. Patriarch Constantine II consecrated the church on February 2, 1835, dedicating it to the Most Holy Theotokos. 

The Turks desecrated and destroyed the church again on September 6, 1955. A smaller church now stands on the site, and the waters of the Life-Giving Spring continue to work miracles.

There is also a Life-Giving Spring Icon of the Most Holy Theotokos which is commemorated on April 4.

KONTAKION Tone 8

O most favored by God, you confer on me the healing of your grace from your inexhaustible Spring. Therefore, since you gave birth incomprehensibly to the Word, I implore you to refresh me with the dew of your grace that I might cry to you: Hail, O Water of salvation.

oca.org