'THE FINAL MYSTERY' : THE DORMITION OF THE HOLY VIRGIN IN ORTHODOX WORSHIP by KALLISTOS WARE BISHOP OF DIOKLEIA It is hard to speak and not less hard to think about the mysteries that the Church keeps in the hidden depths of her inner consciousness. Vladimir Lossky (1903 - 58) If I say that she is incomprehensible, how then may I speak about her? … Silence, in wonder, overshadows narration St Jacob of Serug (c.451 - 521) A liturgical religion 'Christianity is a liturgical religion', states the Russian Orthodox theologian Archpriest Georges Florovsky (1893 – 1979). 'The Church is first of all a worshipping community. Worship comes first, doctrine and discipline second.' 1 In the words of another Russian Orthodox writer, the liturgist
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
'THE FINAL MYSTERY':
THE DORMITION OF THE HOLY VIRGIN IN
ORTHODOX WORSHIP
by
KALLISTOS WAREBISHOP OF DIOKLEIA
It is hard to speak and not less hard to think about the mysteries that the Church keeps in the
hidden depths of her inner consciousness.
Vladimir Lossky (1903 - 58)
If I say that she is incomprehensible, how then may I speak about her? …
Silence, in wonder, overshadows narration
St Jacob of Serug (c.451 - 521)
A liturgical religion
'Christianity is a liturgical religion', states the Russian Orthodox theologian Archpriest
Georges Florovsky (1893 – 1979). 'The Church is first of all a worshipping community.
Worship comes first, doctrine and discipline second.'1 In the words of another Russian
Orthodox writer, the liturgist Archimandrite Cyprian Kern (1899 – 1960), 'The choir of the
Church is a choir of theology.'2 Both of them are reaffirming the well-known principle laid
down by St Prosper of Aquitaine in the middle of the fifth century : 'Let the rule of prayer
determine the rule of faith.'3
If this applies to all aspects of Christian theology, it is true more especially of the
Church's belief concerning the Bodily Assumption of the Virgin Mary. In the Christian East
the doctrine of the Assumption is celebrated rather than defined. More than other articles of
the faith, it is supremely liturgical in its formulation. When we Orthodox wish to speak about
the final glory of the Mother of God, we employ not so much the language of theological
analysis as that of praise and worship. This doxological approach was well expressed by the
Russian Exarch in Western Europe, Metropolitan Vladimir, when he was asked in 1950 by
members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in France what was the teaching of the Orthodox
Church about the Assumption. In reply he simply sent them the Orthodox liturgical texts
used on 15 August, and said that he had nothing to add to what was written there.4
What, then, do the Orthodox liturgical texts in fact have to say about this 'final
mystery' in the life of the Mother of God?5 As a point of departure, let us first consider the
various titles by which the Feast of 15 August is designated in Eastern Christendom. Most
commonly it is called the 'Dormition' or 'Falling Asleep' (Greek Koimisis; Slavonic Uspenie):
this is the name found in the service books, and normally employed by Orthodox Christians
in daily life. Taken in isolation, this title implies that Mary underwent physical death, that is
to say, the separation of her soul from her body; but it leaves open the question whether the
two were then reunited and she was assumed, body and soul together, into heaven.
Other titles applied to the Feast, however, one more explicit. It is sometimes termed
in Greek Metastasis, or else Metabasis or Metathesis, signifying 'passing over', 'migration' or
'translation'.6 Much less frequently – indeed only on rare occasions – it is called the Analipsis
of the Virgin, her 'Ascension' or 'Assumption'. A title that appeals to me, although I cannot
recall that it is officially utilized in the Orthodox Church, is 'The Glorification of the Mother
of God'.
The liturgical practice of the Orthodox Church leaves us in no doubt whatever about
the cardinal importance of the Virgin's Dormition. It is reckoned as one of the Twelve Great
4 See Kalistos Ware, 'The Orthodox Services and their Structure', in Mother Mary and
Archimandrite Kallistos Ware, The Festal Menaion (London : Faber & Faber, 1969), p. 65
(cited hereafter as FM).
Feasts in the annual calendar.7 Since the Byzantine ecclesiastical year commences on 1
September, the Dormition is thus, appropriately enough, the last major celebration in the
twelve-month cycle. In the words of Constantin Andronikoff (1916-97), 'If, by her
Annunciation, the Mother of God is at the beginning of the Christian history of humanity, she
also expresses its finality, by providing the human race with the example of glory lived out
beyond death.'8 What Prince Andronikoff means by 'finality' will become clearer as we
proceed.
The Feast of the Dormition is preceded by a single day of Forefeast (14 August), and
is followed by eight days of Afterfeast (16-23 August). Its importance is further emphasized
by the observance of a two-week fast (1-14 August) in preparation for the Feast. Around the
beginning of the fourteenth century, the Emperor Andronikos II (reigned 1282 – 1328) even
decreed that the entire month of August should be dedicated to the Dormition of the
Theotokos, with the 'dismissal' (apodosis) of the Feast taking place only on 31 August; but
subsequently the Greek Church reverted to 23 August as the date for the 'dismissal'.9
The August 'Fast of the Theotokos', as it is known, is one of the four major periods of
fasting in the Orthodox year (along with the pre-Paschal Fast of Lent, the pre-Christmas Fast,
and the Fast of the Apostles); and, next to Lent, it is the strictest in its observance, involving
what is in effect a vegan diet. Fish, wine and oil are allowed on the Feast of the
Transfiguration (6 August), and wine and oil are also permitted on Saturdays and Sundays;
but meat and animal products (milk, cheese, butter and eggs) are forbidden throughout the
fourteen days before the Feast.
The significance of the Feast of the Dormition is heightened still more by a striking
ceremony, celebrated on the evening of 15 August on the island of Patmos and elsewhere. A
solemn procession is held through the streets, carrying the epitaphios of the Mother of God.
This is most commonly a large, stiffened piece of cloth, with the figure of the dead Virgin
painted or embroidered upon it. She is shown laid out upon her funeral beir, with her eyes
closed and her arms folded across her breast. The procession halts three times, and during
each 'station' the clergy and choir sing lamentations or 'praises' (encomia) in her honour.10
This ceremony is closely similar to the epitaphios procession held on Friday evening in Holy
Week, when a representation of the dead Christ is carried around the exterior of the church or
through the streets; and the encomia in honour of the Virgin are in fact directly modelled
upon the encomia addressed to our Lord sung on Great Friday.11
The obvious parallel established here between the death of the Mother of God and that
of her Son has wider implications for the Orthodox understanding of the Assumption. Alike
in the Patristic homilies on the Dormition and in the liturgical texts, the correspondence
between Mother and Son is repeatedly underlined. Just as Christ died on the Cross and was
buried in a tomb, so Mary underwent a genuine death, albeit in her case not as the result of
exterior violence, and was then interned in a tomb. Just as Christ rose on the third day from
the dead and ascended into heaven, so Mary was raised up from the tomb and assumed into
heaven. As St John of Damascus (c.655 – c.750) puts it, 'There is nothing between Mother
and Son.'12
Origins
Before discussing in detail the liturgical texts, let us briefly consider the origins of the Feast
of the Dormition. It is obvious, first of all, that, in common with the Nativity of the
Theotokos (8 September) and the Entry of the Theotokos into the Temple (21 November),
this is a non-Biblical observance. Just as the New Testament says nothing at all about Mary's
birth and infancy, so likewise it makes no mention of her later years and her death.
So far as Scripture is concerned, Mary's last recorded words one to the servants at the
wedding feast in Cana: 'Do whatever he tells you' (John 2:5). With characteristic Kenosis,
the Holy Virgin on this occasion makes no reference to herself but speaks only of her Son.
Such, indeed, is always her distinctive role: as in the icon of the Hodigitria, she points
towards Jesus. Later in the New Testament, she is present at the Crucifixion and at
Pentecost, but she remains silent. She is to be found at the foot of the Cross – standing, be it
noted, and not kneeling – when Jesus commends her to the care of the Beloved Disciple:
'Here is your mother' (John 19:27). She is to be found also in the upper room at Jerusalem,
waiting with the apostles for the descent of the Holy Spirit: 'All these were constantly
devoting themselves to prayer, together with certain women, including Mary the Mother of
Jesus, as well as his brothers' (Acts 1:14).13 After that, nothing more is said about her in
Scripture: her later years are hidden from us.14
The Feast of the Dormition, then, like those of the Nativity and the Entry of the
Theotokos, rests upon tradition rather than Scripture. But, whereas in the case of the Nativity
and the Entry the tradition is based primarily on a text composed as early as the second
century, the Protevangelion or Book of James, in the case of the Dormition the most ancient
surviving texts are some three hundred years later in date. The first four Christian centuries,
it has been rightly asserted, are 'surprisingly reticent' on the subject of Mary's death,
maintaining what can only be described as 'a profound silence'.15 The first explicit reference
to the end of her earthly life is in the Panarion, an encyclopaedia of heresies written by St
Epiphanius of Salamas around the year 377. Here he expresses surprise that there is no
authorized account of her last days. In a tentative fashion he mentions the possibility that she
may not have died as other human beings do, but may somehow have remained immortal. He
concludes on an apophatic note: 'No one knows her end.'16
After Epiphanius, we have to wait for the best part of another century. The earliest
surviving narratives of the Virgin's Dormition and Assumption date from the second half of
the fifth century and the beginning of the sixth century. They are preserved in a variety of
languages, including Coptic, Ethiopian, Syriac, Georgian, Greek and Latin.17 These early
narratives can be classified into several 'families', which differ widely from one another, and
which seem to depend on distinct archetypes; Stephen Shoemaker speaks with good reason of
their 'polygenetic' character.18 If they do indeed derive ultimately from a single primitive
account, this is now lost and cannot be reconstituted. According to Shoemaker as regards one
group of narratives, those belonging to the 'Palm of the Tree of Life' family, it can be
tentatively argued that the surviving texts are based on traditions dating back to the third and
fourth century, and perhaps even to the second century.19
As regards the Virgin's situation after death, two different versions are given in these
early narratives. According to some of them, most notably in the 'Palm' group – represented
in Greek by the text edited by Antoine Wenger20 - at Mary's death Christ came and received
her soul, wrapping it in garments of dazzling whiteness and entrusting it to the Archangel
Michael. The apostles duly buried her body in Gethsemane. Christ then returned and raised
up her body from the tomb, handing it over to Michael. The archangel deposited the body in
Paradise at the foot of the tree of life; he then brought her soul and placed it once more in her
body.21
In this way, Mary underwent physical death – the separation of soul and body – but
afterwards the two were reunited, and in this way she was truly raised from the dead. It is not
actually said that she was then taken up, body and soul together, into heaven. But it is clear
that she experienced resurrection from the dead; the bodily resurrection, which the rest of
humankind will undergo only on the Last Day, is in her case already an accomplished fact.
In that sense, implicitly if not explicitly, the 'Palm' narratives affirm the Bodily Assumption.
In another group of narratives, however, know as the 'Bethlehem' traditions, the story
ends differently. In Greek this second group is represented by the text edited in the mid-
nineteenth century by Constantin Tischendorff.22 Here, as in the Greek 'Palm' narratives,
Christ takes Mary's soul, and the apostles bury her body in Gethsemane. Then, on the third
day, her body is raised up from the tomb and taken to Paradise.23 At this point, in most
versions the account comes to an end, and nothing is said about the reuniting of her body with
her soul. On the contrary, before her death she is told by Christ: 'Behold, from henceforth
your precious body will be translated to Paradise, but your hold soul will be in the heavens in
the treasures of my Father in surpassing brightness.'24
Here Paradise is evidently regarded as distinct from heaven. It is not the realm of
ultimate glory but a place of waiting, where the souls of the righteous dwell in expectant hope
until the final resurrection. In this place of waiting Mary's body is preserved incorrupt, but
until the Second Coming it remains separate whereas her soul is already in heaven, as yet her
body is not. Thus, in these Greek 'Bethlehem' narratives, although Mary's body is raised from
the tomb, she does not actually anticipate the general resurrection on the Last Day. She will
rise fully from the dead – in the sense that her body will be reunited with her soul – only at
the Panonisa, at the same time as this happens to the rest of humankind. The sole difference
between her and others is that the bodies of the rest of humankind dissolve in the grave,
whereas her body is kept, whole and free from corruption, in Paradise. The 'Bethlehem'
group of narratives, therefore, is 'assumptionless'; although her soul has ascended into
heaven, this has not yet happened to her body, and so she has not yet experienced resurrection
from the dead.
To this significant distinction between the accounts that presuppose a Bodily
Assumption and those that are 'assumptionless', we shall be returning shortly. For the time
being, let us return to the origins of the Feast. The liturgical observance of the Dormition on
15 August first emerges at approximately the same date as the earliest surviving narratives of
Mary's death. The Feast originates as we would expect, in the Holy City. The Jerusalem
Armenian Lectionary, a calendar reflecting the Liturgical practice of the Holy City around the
years 42-40, mentions a Feast of Mary Theotokos celebrated on 15 August, but it does not
state that this observance was specifically linked with her Falling Asleep.25 By the beginning
of the sixth century, however, the celebration on this date in Palestine had come to be
explicitly regarded as the Feast of Mary's Dormition.26 At the end of the same century, the
Emperor Maurice (reigned 582-602) gave official sanction to the observance of the
Dormition on 15 August, decreeing that it should be kept on this date throughout the
Empire.27 In the West the earliest evidence for the celebration of the Dormition on 15 August
is at Rome. The Feast was inserted into the Roman calendar by Pope Sergius I (687-701),
and from there it spread to Churches of the Gallican rite, becoming universally observed
throughout the West by the end of the eighth century.28
Associated with the liturgical commemoration of the Virgin's death, there developed
in Jerusalem a cult of the Virgin's tomb, which was located at the foot of the Mount of
Olives, not far from Gethsemane. Present-day pilgrims will readily recall the site, with its
tunnel-like entrance and the striking flight of steps leading down to the tomb. This cult is
first attested in texts from the late fifth century, more or less contemporary with the earliest
surviving narratives of the Dormition.29
The tomb has always been empty. To the best of my knowledge, no Christian group
claims, or has ever claimed, to possess the body of the Virgin Mary, or any part of her body
such as her head, hand or foot. By contrast, there are numerous relics believed to be from the
body of her mother St Anne, or from that of St John the Baptist. There are certainly
secondary relics from the Virgin, such as portions of her clothing;30 but from her actual body
there is nothing at all. The absence of bodily relics is often invoked as evidence in support of
the Bodily Assumption: but, like most arguments from silence, it is by itself inconclusive.31
Did Mary die?
In view of the startling lack of evidence from the first four centuries, it is understandable that
the Apostolic Constitution defining the dogma of the Bodily Assumption, Munificentissimus
Deus, issued by Pope Pius Xii on 1 November 1950, chooses to rely on theological rather
than historical arguments. In particular, it affirms a direct connection between the Virgin's
absolute purity, by virtue of her Immaculate Conception, and her Bodily Assumption: 'She,
by all entirely unique privilege, completely overcame sin by her Immaculate Conception, and
as a result she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, and she
did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body.'32
Concerning the actual circumstances of the Assumption, Munificentissimus Deus
remains deliberately imprecise. The decree even leaves open the question whether Mary
underwent physical death; it merely states that she was assumed into heaven 'on the
completion of the course of her earthly life' (expleto terrestris vitae cursu).33 Certain Roman
Catholic Mariologists, such as Fr Martin Jugie, have in fact argued strongly in favour of the
'immortalist' view, maintaining that Mary never experienced death but was taken-up alive
into heaven, like Enoch (Generaldirektion Wettbewerb. 5:24; cf. Heb. 11:5) and Elijah (2 Kgs
2:11) in the Old Covenant. But this, so I understand, is not the usual Roman Catholic
opinion.
What, then, is the standpoint of the Orthodox liturgical books in this matter?
Notwithstanding the hesitant speculations of Epiphanios, later from the Christian East
exclude the 'immortalist' option, stating unambiguously that the Virgin Mary, like her Son,
underwent a genuine bodily death. This is evident, for example, from the Synaxarion
appointed to be read at Matins (Orthros) on 15 August. This is included in the service books
after Canticle Six of the Canon, and may be regarded as the standard account of Mary's last
days on earth, as generally accepted in the Orthodox Church during the past ten centuries.34
According to the Synaxarion, the death of the Virgin took place at Jerusalem; there is
no suggestion that it might have happened at Ephesus.35 Three days in advance she was
warned of her coming death by an angel,36 who gave her a palm branch. After receiving this
message, Mary ascended to the Mount of Olives to pray; as she passed by, the trees bowed
down to her. Returning home, she called together her kinsfolk and neighbours, and told them
the news; and she made ready her funeral bier and everything else needed for her burial.
Following a sudden clap of thunder, the apostles arrived from the ends of the earth, borne
miraculously on clouds. Also with them were the hierarchs Dionysios the Areopagite,
Hierotheos and Timothy.37
The Theotokos prepared for her death with joy, and told the apostles to refrain from
all lamentation. Her decease was not preceded by any illness. She simply lay down on the
bier that she had set in order. In full possession of her faculties, she offered prayers for the
whole world. Then she blessed the assembled apostles and hierarchs, and commended her
soul into the hands of her Son.
Taking up the bier, the apostles carried it to Gethsemane, where there was a tomb
made ready for her. Certain Jews sought to obstruct the procession, and one of them even
attempted to overturn the bier. His hands were cut off with a sword by an angel, but he was
subsequently healed.38 Mary's body was placed in the tomb, and for three days the apostles
remained in Gethsemane, keeping watch in front of it. One of the apostles, who had been
delayed, arrived only on the third day.39 To enable him to bid the Theotokos a last farewell,
the tomb was opened. To the astonishment of everyone, it was found to be empty; all that it
contained was Mary's burial shroud or robe (Sindon).
So the story in the Synaxarion concludes. The question immediately arises: How
literally is it to be taken? Are we Orthodox obliged to accept it exactly in all its details?
Surely not. Even though it is indeed the case that the law of prayer is the law of faith, it does
not follow that everything recounted in the Service books is to be accepted word for word,
strictly according to the letter. A distinction has to be made between symbolism and poetical
imagery, on the one hand, and statements of historical fact, on the other; between incidental
details of the story, which need not be interpreted à la letter, and primary affirmations,
without which the story would lose its point.
In the present instance, it is surely unnecessary to insist on such features as the
bowing of the trees to the earth or the cutting-off of the Jew's hands. The theological
meaning of the story does not lie here. There are, however, at least three points that play an
essential role in the narrative. They can be summed-up in the form of questions. Did the
Virgin die? Was her tomb subsequently opened and found to be empty? Was she assumed
into heaven in both soul and body?
As regards the first two questions, the Synaxarion provides clear answers. Yes, the
Virgin did indeed undergo bodily death. Yes, her tomb was opened on the third day and
found to be empty. So far as the third question is concerned, however, the Synaxarion is
strangely ambivalent. It gives no indication whatever as to the situation of Mary's body after
it was raised from the tomb. It does not say, as in the 'Palm' traditions, that her body was
reunited with her soul, and in this way resurrected; nor does it say, as in the 'Bethlehem'
traditions, that her body was left in Paradise, and there preserved until the Last Day, separate
from her soul. So far as the Synaxarion is concerned, the choice between these two versions
is left entirely open.
John of Thessalonica, writing in the early seventh century, is slightly more definite
about the Virgin's end: 'She had been taken away by Christ, the God who became flesh from
her, to the place of her eternal, living inheritance.'40 This could be taken to mean that she was
assumed, body and soul together, into heaven; but this is not clearly stated. The Typikon of
the Great Church, edited by Dmitrievskii, is even less precise concerning the destiny of her
body: 'Christ translated it, in a way that he alone understands.'41 The Menologion of Basil II
speaks in similarly nebulous terms: 'God translated it to a place that he himself knows.'42
It is clear that many of the early writers prefer to be deliberately indefinite concerning
the final glory of the Mother of God. Many display what Daley calls a 'cultivated
vagueness'.43 This attitude of apophatic reticence is evident, for example, in St Andrew of
Crete (c.66-740), when he says that it is more reverent to 'choose silence over words'.44
Indeed, for a long period, extending up to the fifteenth century, 'assumptionless' and
the 'assumptionist' standpoints continued to coexist side by side in the Christian East.45 Thus,
on the one side, in the homily attributed to Modestos of Jerusalem (dating in fact from the
late seventh century), it is said that Mary was placed 'in Paradise, in the tent of an immortal
body', which seems to imply the 'assumptionless' position. But the homilist is reluctant to
commit himself, stating that after her burial she experienced 'holy things, beyond our
comprehension …. [Christ] raised her from the grave and took her to himself, in a way
known only to him.'46 The opinion that Mary's body remained in Paradise until the Parousia
is upheld by, among others, the Emperor Leo the Wise and John Geometres in the tenth
century, and by Joseph Bryennios in the fifteenth.
On the other hand, the 'assumptionist' viewpoint is upheld by an impressive series of
writers, and can claim considerably stronger support than the alternative 'Paradise' theory.
Theoteknos of Livias, for example, speaks of Mary's 'assumption' (analimpsis),47 and claims
that her body was 'confided for a short time to the earth, and then … was taken up in glory to
heaven along with her soul'.48 St Germanos of Constantinople (c.640 – c.733) and St John of
Damascus also affirm the Bodily Assumption, as is done in the later Byzantine period
(fourteenth-fifteen century) by St Gregory Palamas, St Nicolas Cabasilas and St Mark of
Ephesus.
From the sixteenth century onwards, it appears that no Orthodox theologian has
upheld the separate preservation of Mary's body in Paradise until the Second Coming. St
Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain (c.1749-1809) may be taken as summing up the modern
Orthodox consensus when he writes, carefully correcting what he sees as the omissions at the
end of the Synaxarion in the service books:
We note here that our Lady the Theotokos, after her three-day sleep in the tomb, was
not only translated but also resurrected from the tomb, and was assumed into the
heavens; that is to say, her all-radiant soul was united again with her body that had
received God, and in this state she arose from tomb. And after her resurrection she
was immediately assumed with her body into the heavens, or rather, above the
heavens.49
How far does the hymnography of the Feast provide firm and clear support for this statement
by St Nikodimos?
Theology in line and colour
Before turning to the liturgical texts, let us first look briefly at the iconography of the Feast;
for in the Church's worship the spoken word and the visual image are intimately linked, each
confirming the other. Indeed, Orthodox worshippers, arriving in church on 15 August, before
ever they have listened to any of the appointed hymns, will first of all be brought face to face
with a pictorial representation – the icon of the Feast, which is placed in the centre of the
church or close to the entrance at the west end. It is this festal icon that initially establishes in
their minds the spiritual meaning of the celebration. What, then, do they see on first setting
foot within the place of worship?
The Feast of the Dormition, as we have seen, commemorates two events, connected
but distinct: first, the death and burial of the Mother of God; second, her resurrection and
ascension. The earliest icons of the Feast,50 dating from the tenth century onwards, depict
only the first of these two events, showing the death of the Virgin but not her Assumption.
Her body is represented lying upon the bier, with her eyes closed, and with the apostles and
hierarchs standing round her. Behind the bier stands Christ, holding what appears to be a
baby clothed in white; this is the soul of the Virgin, which she has at this very instant
commended into the hands of her Son. Thus the icon sets before us the moment of the
separation of the Virgin's soul from her body, but it gives no indication of what may have
happened subsequently. Comparing this Dormition icon with the standard icon of the Virgin
and Child, we note what Jaroslav Pelikan terms 'a striking reversal of roles': in the icon of the
Virgin and Child, it is Mary who holds Christ, but in the Dormition icon it is the Son who
holds the Mother in his arms.51
From around the fourteenth century onwards, however, more especially in Serbia and
Russia, icons are found that represent not only the Virgin's death but her Assumption. As
before, the apostles surround the bier on which her body lies, and Christ stands behind it,
holding her soul. Then, at the top of the icon, the opened gates of heaven are depicted; and,
slightly below, there is a mandorla upborne by angels, within which is shown the figure of the
Virgin, full length and robed, on the point of passing through the celestial portals. It is clear
that this depicts not her soul only but her total person, body and soul together.
'Assumptionist' icons of this kind remain the exception rather than the norm, and may be due
to western influence; but they have an accepted place within the Orthodox iconographic
canon.
The older type of Dormition icon, then, displays an apophatic reserve, similar to that
found in many Patristic homilies, while the later type expresses a greater cataphatic boldness.
In that case, what is the standpoint of the liturgical texts?
Scripture readings
Little can be inferred from the Scripture readings appointed for the Feast of the Dormition.
The three Old Testament lessons at Great Vespers are identical with those prescribed for the
Birth of the Mother of God (8 September) and for the Annunciation (25 March):
(1) Genesis 28 : 10-17 (Jacob's ladder): the Mother of God unites heaven and earth.
While applied more commonly to her Birthgiving, this image of the ladder stretching up to
heaven is also an appropriate symbol of her Assumption.
(2) Ezekiel 43 : 27 – 44 : 4 (the closed gate through which none but the prince of
Israel may pass): this is an obvious symbol for the Virgin Birth, but has no direct connection
with the Dormition.
(3) Proverbs 9 : 1-11 ('Wisdom has built her house'): this again refers to the
Incarnation rather than the Assumption. The house that Christ the Wisdom of God (1 Cor.
1:24) has built for himself is the human nature that he has taken from the Virgin, dwelling
within her womb.
The New Testament readings for the Feast of the Dormition are once more the same
as those assigned for 8 September and (in part) for 25 March:
(1) Matins Gospel : Luke 1 : 39-49, 56 (the visitation of Elizabeth by Mary).
(2) Epistle at the Liturgy: Philippians 2 : 5-11 (the Kenosis and exaltation of Christ).
(3) Gospel at the Liturgy: Luke 10 : 32-42; 11 : 27-28 (Martha and Mary; Christ's
answer to the woman in the crowd, 'Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and
obey it').52
In the absence of Biblical descriptions of the death of the Theotokos, it is only to be
expected that the Scripture readings for the Feast should refer mainly to the Incarnation. In
the case of the Epistle at the Liturgy, however, Mary's translation into heaven can of course
be seen as parallel to, and indeed the consequence of, the exaltation of her Son (Phil. 2:9).
More generally, since Mary's glorification is the extension and fulfilment of her divine
motherhood, texts referring to Christ's birth have also a fitting place on 15 August.
Elsewhere in the services for 15 August, frequent use is made of the psalm verse
'Arise, O Lord, into they rest: thou and the Ark of thy holiness' (Ps. 131[132] : 8).53 As the
word 'Ark' is often used as a title for Virgin Mary, it is natural to see here a reference to her
Bodily Assumption. Two other psalm verses are also employed on 15 August. The first of
these, 'You will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One experience corruption'
(Ps. 15[16] : 10), applied by the Apostolic Church to Christ (Acts 2:27; 13:35), is taken by
the hymnographers as referring also to Mary: Christ has preserved her body 'incorrupt in the
tomb'.54 The second text speaks of the gates of heaven being 'lifted up', so that 'the King of
glory may come in' (Ps. 23[24]: 7-10); once more, it is easy to transfer these words from
Christ to his Mother, and to take this as a reference to the Assumption.55
1 'The Elements of Liturgy: An Orthodox View', in Georges Florovsky, The Collected Works,
vol. 13 (Vaduz : Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1989), p. 86.2 Quoted in Constantin Andronikoff, Le sens des fêtes, vol. 1. Le cycle fixe (Paris : Cerf,
1970), p. 7. 3 On the grace of God and free will 8 (PL 51 : 209C): … ut legem credendi lex statuat
supplicandi; often cited as Lex orandi lex credendi, 'The rule of prayer is the rule of faith.?5 For the phrase 'final mystery', applied to the Dormition of the Theotokas, see 15 August,
Great Vespers, Lity 1 (FM, p. 508). The full text of the Orthodox services for the actual
Feastday of the Dormition (15 August) can be found in FM, pp. 504-29 (translated from the
original Greek). For another translation, made from the Slavonic, see Isaac E. Lambertsen,
The Menaion of the Orthodox Church, vol. 11 (in reality, vol. 12) (Liberty, TN: St. John of
Kronstadt Press, 1997), pp. 168-78. Lambertsen also gives the texts for the Forefeast and the
Afterfeast; these are not included in FM. So far as 15 August is concerned, there are no
significant variations between the Greek and the Slavonic service books, except at Small
Vespers; but in the texts for the Forefeast and the Afterfeast, there are numerous differences
between the two.
I have not detected any allusion in the hymnography to Revelation 12:1; but this is
unsurprising, since (as we have seen) the Christian East does not usually apply this text to
Mary.
Apophatic Reserve
6 The term 'Translation' (Metastasis) is also applied in the Orthodox service books to the
death of St John the Theologian (commemorated on 26 September). This reflects the legend
that the body of John, like that of the Virgin, was assumed into heaven: on this, see Martin
Jugie, La Mort et l'Assumption de la Sainte Vierge : Étude historico-doctrinale, Studi e Testi
114 (Rome: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1944), pp. 710-26. In current editions of the
Greek service books, the notion that John was assumed bodily into heaven is explicitly
rejected as a misinterpretation of John 21 : 22 : see Menaion tou Septemvriou (Athens :
Apostoliki Diakonia, 1959), p. 165; Menaion tou Septemvriou (Athens : Phos, 1961), pp. 283,
300-1. 7 The Twelve Great Feasts are listed in FM, pp. 41-42. 8 Le sens des fêtes, vol. 1, p. 276. 9 See Jugie, La Mort et l'Assumption, pp. 340-42. 10 The encomia for the Virgin are not included in the Menaion or in any of the other main service
books, but they are to be found in special booklets. I have in my possession two such booklets. The
texts that they contain seem to be quite independent of each other:
(1) Akolouthia Tera eis tin Metastasin tis Yperagias Despoinis imon Theotokou kai
Aeiparthenou Marias, ek pollon eranistheisa (Venice: Frangiskos Andreolas, 1836).
(2) Enkomia Neophani, itoi Akolonthia Panieros Eis tin pansevaston te Kai panagian
metastasin tis yperevlogimenis kai panendoxou Despoinis imon Theotokou kai aeiparthenou Marias,
2nd edn (Patras : E.P. Christodonlos, 1871).
Neither of those booklets provides any indication of authorship; I suspect that both texts are
relatively modern in date. There may well be other Greek versions of the encomia to the Virgin, and
certainly there are also versions in Slavonic. 11 For the enkomia used on the evening of Great Friday, see Mother Mary and Archimandrite Kallistos
Ware, The Lenten Triodion (London/Boston : Faber & Faber, 1978), pp. 623-44. These actually form
part of Matins for Holy Saturday, which in most places is celebrated by anticipation on Friday
evening.
It is time to consider in detail the hymnography of the feast.56 The date of particular texts is
often hard to establish. The two Canons for the Feast, both containing important doctrinal
statements, are ascribed, perhaps correctly, to writers of the eighth century: the first Canon to
St Kosmas of Mainman (c.675 – c.751), and the second to his close contemporary St John of
Damascus. Other material is attributed to St Theophanes Graptos (died 845). Numerous
12 Homilies on the Dormition 3:5; English translation in Brian E. Daley, On the Dormition of the
Virgin Mary: Early Patristic Homilies (St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1998), p. 238. On John of
Damascus, see Kallistos Ware, 'The Earthly Heaven": The Mother of God in the Teaching of St John
of Damascus', in William M. McLoughlin and Jill Pinnock (ed.), Mary for Earth and Heaven
(Leominster: Gracewing, 2002), pp. 355-68, especially pp. 363-4. 13 It is surprising that in icons of Pentecost Mary is usually absent (although she is always depicted in
icons of the Ascension). She does appear, however, in what is the earliest of all surviving
representations of the descent of the Holy Spirit, the Syrian Rabbula Gospels (586). 14 According to the normal exegesis in the Christian East, the 'woman clothed with the sun, with the
moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars' (Rev. 12:1), is understood as a figure of
the Church, not of the Virgin Mary. Only a few Greek Fathers, such as (somewhat hesitantly)
Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 315-403), and (somewhat more confidently) Oecumenius of Tricca (6th
century), suggest that this passage may refer directly to Mary. Since, however, the Holy Virgin is
often seen as a figure of the Church, in an indirect way Rev. 12:1 may legitimately be interpreted in
Marian terms. Yet, taken in isolation, it hardly constitutes historical evidence for the Bodily
Assumption. 15 Stephen J. Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary's Dormition and Assumption (Oxford:
University Press, 2002), pp.1,10. This work provides a thorough and up-to-date survey of the subject.
Among earlier studies, the monumental monograph of Martin Jugie, La Mort et l'Assumption (see not
6), still remains fundamental. Consult also Antoine Wenger, L'Assumption de la T.S. Vierge dans la
tradition byzantine du VIe au Xe siècle: Études et Documents, Archives de l'Orient chrétien 5 (Paris:
Institut Française d'études byzantines, 1955); Michel van Esbroeck, Aux origines de la Dormition de
la Vierge: Études historiques sur les traditions orientales (Brookfield, VT: Variorum, 1995); Simon
C. Mimouni, Dormition et assomption de Marie: Histoire des traditions anciennes, Théologie
historique 98 (Paris: Beauchesne, 1995). For the main references in the Greek and Latin Fathers,
consult the indices (s.v. 'Assumption') in Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, vol.
1 (London/New York: Sheed & Ward, 1963), and in Luig: Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the
Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1999).16 Panarion (Against the Heresies) 78:23:9; cited in Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions, p.14.
texts are anonymous and are therefore difficult to date; many may be from the eighth or ninth
century, but individual items may be somewhat later. For our present purpose, however, the
antiquity or otherwise of the texts is of secondary significance. What matters is that they
have been included in the service books and form part of the Church's liturgical tradition.
17 For English translations of these texts, see M.R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford :
Clarendon Press, 1924), pp. 194-227; Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions, pp. 290-414. 18 Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions, p. 143. 19 Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions, pp. 76-77, 285. 20 Wenger, L'Assumption, pp. 210-41; tr. Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions, 351-69. To avoid
unnecessary detail, I limit myself here to the earliest Greek narratives in the 'Palm' and 'Bethlehem'
traditions; for a full discussion, see Shoemaker, op. cit., pp. 57-76. 21 Wenger, §§ 35, 45, 47-48. 22 C. Tischendorff, Apocalypses Apocryphae (Leipzig: H. Mendelssohn, 1866), pp. 95-112; tr. James,
pp. 201-9. 23 Tischendorff, §§ 44, 48-50. 24 Tischendorff, § 39. 25 Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions, p. 82. 26 Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions, p. 116. 27 Nikiphoros Kallistos, Ecclesiastical History 1 : 17 : 28 (PG 147 : 292 AB).28 Jugie, La Mort et l'Assumption, pp. 195-202. 29 Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions, pp. 98-107. 30 On secondary relics of the Virgin, see Jugie, La Mort et l'Assumption, pp. 688-99. On 2 July, for
example, the Orthodox Church commemorates the Placing of the Honourable Robe of the Most Holy
Theotokos in the Church of Blackernae, and on 31 August it commemorates the Placing of the
Cincture or Sash (zoni) of the Virgin in the Church of Chalkoprateia. These are both
Constantinopolitan feasts. 31 Jugie, La Mort et l'Assumption, p. 688, goes so far as to dismiss this argument from the absence of
relics as 'very feeble', pointing out that there are many early Christian saints, including several
apostles, of whom there are no surviving primary relics. On the other hand, Alexis Kniazeff, La Mère
de Dieu dans l'Église Orthodox (Paris: Cerf, 1990), pp. 143-4, calls the absence of bodily relics 'a
weighty argument', observing (somewhat enigmatically): 'One can even speak of this as a dogmatic
fact.' 32 Cited in Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions, p. 9.
As regards the three questions that we formulated earlier in connection with the
Synaxarion, the liturgical texts give clear answers to the first two. They plainly confirm that
the Holy Virgin underwent a genuine physical death, and that after her burial her tomb was
found to be empty. But in response to the third question, the Bodily Assumption, their
testimony is less straightforward. The great majority of the hymns are ambiguous, stating
33 N. Danziner and A. Schön-metzer, Encheiridion Symbolorum, 36th edn (Freiburg im Breisgau:
Herder, 1976), p. 782. 34 See Manaion tou Argoustou (Athens: Phos, 1961), pp. 153-4; Menaion tou Argoustou (Athens:
Apostoliki Diakonia, 1962), pp. 86-87. This reproduces almost exactly the notice to be found in the
tenth-century Synaxarion of the Church of Constaninople : see Hippolyte Delehaye, Propylaeum ad
Acta Sanctorum Novembris. Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae e Codice Sirmondiano
(Brussels : Bollandists, 1902), pp. 891-4. The Constantinople Synaxarion depends, in all probability
on the early 7th-century account of Mary's death given in the Homily on the Dormition by John,
Archbishop of Thessalonica (tr. Daley, On the Dormition of Mary, pp. 47-67; and it is largely similar
to the Greek 'Palm' narrative edited by Wenger (see note 20).
See also the entries for 15 August in the Constantinople Typikon preserved in Ms Patmos 266
Korchak-Novitskii, 1895), pp. 104-5; and in the Menologion of Basil II (also 10th century) (PG 117 :
585B). Both of these differ significantly in their ending from the Synaxarion edited by Delehaye; the
entry in the Menologion of Basil II is very brief. 35 On the tradition that the Virgin died at Ephesus, not Jerusalem, see Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions,
pp. 74-76. The arguments in favour of Ephesus as the place of her death, he says, 'are no longer taken
seriously', and the evidence in support of this view is late and 'meagre'. 36 Sometimes identified as Gabriel: see Nokodimos of the Holy Mountain, Synaxaristis ton Dodeka
Minon tou Eniartou, vol. 2 (Athens, 1868), p. 318. 37 For their presence at the Virgin's death, see Dionysios the Areopagite, On the Divine Names 3:2 (ed.
B.R. Suchla, Corpus Dionysiacum, vol. 1, Patristische Texte und Studien 33 [Berlin/New York:
Walter de Gruyter, 1990], p. 141); discussed in Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions, pp. 29-30. The
Dionysian writings are usually dated c.500. 38 The Jew's name is not mentioned in the Synaxarion; elsewhere it is given as Jephonias or Jechonias.
A regrettable feature in most of the early Dormition narratives is their strong hostility towards the
Jews, but fortunately in the Synaxarion, apart from the present incident, this anti-Jewish feeling is not
in evidence. It should be noted that John of Damascus, when recording the cutting-off of the Jew's
hands, is careful to distance himself from the story; without himself endorsing it, he merely calls it 'an
merely that Mary has commended her soul or spirit to Christ, or that she has 'passed over into
life', without specifying exactly what has happened to her body. A few texts suggest that her
body has been preserved incorrupt in Paradise. A somewhat larger group of texts – but still
no more than a small portion of the total material for the Feast – asserts, with varying degrees
of directness, that her body has been assumed into the glory of heaven.
account that circulates on the lips of many' (Homilies on the Dormition 2:13); tr. Daley, p. 217).
Icons of the Dormition frequently, but not invariably, depict this incident. 39 In some early accounts, the apostle is named as Thomas. The story of the late arrival of the apostle
and the opening of the tomb is not to be found in the 'Palm' narrative edited by Wenger, but it occurs
in the excerpt from the Euthymiac History (? mid 6th century), inserted into John of Damascus,
Homilies on the Dormition 2:18 (tr. Daley, pp. 224-6). 40 The Dormition of our Lady 14 (tr. Daley, p. 67). 41 ed. Dmitrievskii, p. 105. 42 PG 117 : 585B. 43 On the Dormition of Mary, p. 27. 44 On the Dormition of Mary 1 : 1 (tr. Daley, p. 103). In fact, Andrew later makes clear that he accepts
the Bodily Assumption. 45 For detailed evidence, see Jugie, La Mort et l'Assumption, pp.214-86, 315-53. 46 On the Dormition 10, 14 (tr. Daley, pp. 97, 100). 47 On the Assumption 9 [31]; cf. 5 (tr. Daley, pp.78, 74). 48 On the Assumption 3 [9] (tr. Daley, p.73). 49 Synaxaristis, vol. 2, p. 320, note 1. 50 On the iconography of the Dormition, see Vladimir Lossky, in Leonid Ouspensky and Vladimir
Lossky, The Meaning of Icons (Olten: Urs Graf-Verlag, 1952), pp. 215-16; revised edn (Crestwood,
NY: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1982), pp. 213-14. Cf. John Buggley, Festival Icons for the
Christian Year (London: Mowbray, 2000), pp. 160-66.51 Mary through the Centuries: Her Place in the History of Culture (New Haven/London: Yale
University Press, 1996), p. 207. 52 On the choice (at first sight somewhat surprising) of this Lukan periscope for Marian Feasts, see the
comment of Archimandrite Lev Gillet (1893 – 1980): 'Yea, blessed is Mary, but not principally
because she, in her flesh, gave birth to our Lord. She is most blessed because she, in her flesh, gave
birth to our Lord. She is most blessed because she has been, to a unique degree, obedient and faithful'
('The Veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God', in E.L. Mascall [ed.], The Mother of
God: A Symposium by Members of the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergins [Westminster: Dacre
In general, the hymnography is marked by the apophatic reserve, the 'cultivated
vagueness', to which we have already drawn attention. This reserve is evident, first of all, in
the three hymns which occur most frequently throughout the whole period of the Feast, and
which are therefore thoroughly familiar to all Orthodox worshippers: the Apolytikion or
Tropanion of the Feast, the Kontakion, and the Exapostilarion.57 Thus the last of these states:
O apostles, assembled her from the ends of the earth,
Bury my body in Gethsemane,
And thou, O my Son and God, receive my spirit.58
This refers solely to Mary's death and burial, forming a precise verbal counterpart to what is
represented visually in icons of the Feast (apart from those that show the Virgin ascending to
heaven in a mandorla.
The Apolytikion is slightly more explicit:
In giving birth, O Theotokos, thou hast retained thy virginity,
And in falling asleep thou hast not forsaken the world.
Thou who art the Mother of Life hast passed over into life,
And by thy prayers thou dost deliver our Souls from death.59
(Greek); 18 August, Matins, Aposticha 3 (Slav) (tr. Lambertsen, Menaion of the Orthodox Church,
vol. 11, p. 221) : 'Thy body remained inaccessible to corruption; and, though it was given over for
burial according to the law of nature, it remained incorrupt.' Note also the striking words on 18
August, Sessional Hymn 2 after Canticle 3 of the Canon (tr. Lambertsen, p. 217): 'O thou who hast
conceived God without seed and given birth to him in the flesh without corruption, thou art clothed in
the new raiment of incorruption; for as Mother of Life and Queen of all, thou hast passed over, O
Virgin, into immaterial life.'55 See below, p. 000.56 See Jugie, La Mort et L'Assumption, pp. 188-93. 57 For an explanation of these terms, see FM, pp. 545, 551-2, 554. 58 FM, p. 525. I have sometimes modified the translation in FM.
Here the emphasis is upon Mary's unbroken closeness to the world by virtue of her
intercession. Her death is an apparent withdrawal that is in reality no severance at all. This
insistence upon the Virgin's continuing involvement in our lives through her ceaseless prayer
is a master-theme throughout the festal hymnography. As for the phrase ' …hast passed over
into life', this may easily be understood as an oblique allusion to the Bodily Assumption; but
it does not exclude the possibility that her soul alone has ascended into heaven.
Somewhat firmer support for the doctrine of the Assumption is provided by the
Kontakionn:
Neither the tomb nor death held fast the Theotokos,
Who is ever watchful in her prayers,
And in whose intercession lies unfailing hope.
For as the Mother of Life
She has been transported into life
By him who dwelt within her ever-virgin womb.60
Here, as before, the main stress is upon the constant intercession of the Mother of God. At
the same time, the statement that she was not 'held fast' by the tomb definitely implies that the
tomb was found to be empty. Yet the Kontakion does not say explicitly that her body was
assumed into heaven.
In general, looking beyond these three hymns to the liturgical texts as a whole, it is
definitely understood that Mary experienced physical death. 'Thou hast undergone an exodus
that was conformable to nature', says St John of Damascus.61 The Virgin's body was
'embalmed as a corpse',62 and she descended to the subterranean regions. In the words once
more of John, 'A strange wonder it was to see the living Heaven of the King of all descend
into the hallows of the earth.'63 In this connection, the liturgical texts underline the familiar
60 FM, p.520.
parallel between Mother and Son. Mary's end corresponds to that of Christ. As John insists,
since Jesus underwent death, it was appropriate that his Mother should do so likewise:
If her Fruit, whom none may comprehend,
On whose account she was called Heaven,
Submitted of his own will to burial as a mortal,
How should she, his Virgin Mother, refuse it?64
What happened, then, after this genuine death that Mary suffered? The majority of
texts merely state, as does the Exapostilarion, that she commended her soul or spirit into the
hands of her Son, but they say nothing about the resurrection of her body:
The spotless Bride ….
Today delivers her undefiled soul
To her Creator and her God.65
# # #
She who is higher than the heavens,
More glorious than the seraphim,
She who is held in greater honour than all creation,
She who by reason of her surpassing purity
Became the receiver of the everlasting Essence,
Today commends her all-holy soul into the hands of her Son.66
As John of Damascus affirms:
He who, taking flesh, O Theotokos,
Strangely made his dwelling in thine undefiled womb,
Himself received thine all-holy spirit,
And, as a Son paying his due,
65 15 August, Great Vespers, Lity 3 (FM, pp.508-9). 66 15 August, Small Vespers, Lord, I have cried 4; Great Vespers, Lity 2 (FM, pp. 505, 508).
He gave it rest with himself.67
# #??
Kosmas speaks in similar terms:
The angelic powers were amazed
As they looked in Zion upon their own Master,
Bearing in his hands the soul of a woman.68
It is noteworthy that the hymns for the Feast do not simply say that Mary 'died', but that she
'commended her soul' or 'delivered her spirit' into the hands of Christ. Her departure from
this earthly life, so it is implied, was not simply the result of external necessity but was
voluntarily accepted by the Virgin. Her death was not passive but active. The language used
of Mary deliberately recalls what is said of Christ's death: he 'gave up' or 'handed over' his
spirit (Matt. 27 : 50; John 19 : 30).69
Alongside these texts that speak of Mary entrusting her soul into the hands of her Son,
there are many other passages that refer – in terms similar to the Apolytikion and Kontakion
of the Feast – to her passing over through death into fuller life. For the most part, however,
they refrain from stating specifically that her body participates in this new life. So Kosmas
(Greek): 'Gates of the heavens, be opened ….'82 15 August, Small Vespers, Lord, I have cried 2 (Greek) (FM, p. 504). Cf. Ps. 131[132] : 8; Ezek.
44 : 1-3. 83 15 August, Great Vespers, Lity 5 (FM, p. 509). 85 Synaxaristis, vol. 1, pp. 320-1, note 1. 86 In the Rome edition of the Menaion (vol. 6, pp. 398, 433, 456-7), the Greek text is unemended,
reading as in the translation given here. The Apostoliki Diakonia edition of the Menaion (vol. 12, pp.
76, 98, 112). also leaves the Greek unemended. Finally, yet more perversely, on 20 August it gives
the original, unemended text (p. 200). All of which goes to show how greatly the Orthodox Church
needs an authoritative critical edition of the service books. 88 17 August, Matins, Aposticha 4 (Greek); 16 August, Vespers, Aposticha 5 (Slav) (tr. Lambertsen, p.
180). Cf. Ps. 18:6 [19:5]; 76:11 [77:10]; 45:6 [46:5]; 78 [79]:13. 89 This Homily can be found in PG 107: 157-72; the decisive passage is at 161C-164A. See Jugie, La
Mort et l'Assumption, pp. 265-8.90 John of Damascus alludes briefly to Paradise, when he says: 'Going to dwell in the tomb, she made
it Paradise' (15 August, Matins, Canon 2, Canticle 8:4 [FM, p. 523]). Here, however, he is clearly
speaking in symbolical terms, and is not referring to Paradise in the narrower sense, as a place of
waiting distinct from heaven. Thus this provides no support for the notion that the Virgin's body is
being preserved in Paradise, separate from her soul (a doctrine John certainly did not hold). 91 15 August, Matins, Canon 1, Canticles 1:3 (FM, p. 515). 93 15 August, Matins, Canon 2, Canticle 4:2 (FM, p. 517). 94 15 August, Vespers, Lord, I have cried 1 (FM, p. 506). 95 16 August, Vespers, Aposticha 3; also 19 August, Matins, Aposticha 2 (Greek); cf. 20 August,
Matins, Aposticha 2 (Slav); tr. Lambertsen, p. 235. 96 97 18 August, Vespers, Lord, I have cried 3 (Greek). 98 15 August, Great Vespers, Apostocha 4 (FM, p. 511). Cf. Ps. 23[24]: 7-10. 99 15 August, Great Vespers, Lord, I have cried 4 (FM, p. 507).
apocalyptic feast.'116 This apocalyptic, eschatological significance of Mary, disclosed above
all through her Assumption, is one of the leitmotifs in the greatest of all Marian poems in the
Christian East, the Akathist Hymn:
Rejoice, bright dawn of the mystical day ….
Rejoice, promised land ….
100 La Mort et l'Assumption, p. 188. 101 On the Orthodox conception of theosis (fundamental for any understanding of the Bodily
Assumption, see Julius Gross, The Divinisation of the Christian according to the Greek Fathers
(Anaheim, CA: A & C Press, 2000); Normal Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek
Patristic Tradition (Oxford: University Press, 2004). 102 See note 12. 103 See note 64. 104 See note 79, 90. 105 See note 66. 106 Orthodox and Roman Catholics agree over the Bodily Assumption but not over the Immaculate
Conception. This latter divergence, however, should not be exaggerated; and it is in any case a
disagreement, not so much in our understanding of the consequences of the Fall. See Kallistos Ware,
'The Sanctity and Glory of the Mother of God: Orthodox Approaches', The Way, Supplement 51
(1984), pp. 79-96, especially pp. 90-91; also the discussion between Edward Yarnold, SJ, and
Kallistos Ware at the Congress of the Ecumenical Society of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Chichester,
1986, later published as a pamphlet: The Immaculate Conception: A Search for Convergence
(Wallington: ESBVM, 1987). 107 See Brian E. Daley, The Hope of the Early Church (Cambridge: University Press, 1991), pp. 179-
80, 203; T.L. Frazier, A Second Look at the Second Coming: Sorting through the Speculations (Ben
Lomond, CA: Conciliar Press, 1999), pp. 227-9. 108 The anticipated resurrection of the 'saints' who rose from their graves and entered the Holy City in
their bodies, following Christ's Crucifixion (Matt. 27: 52-53), is altogether different from Mary's
anticipated resurrection. There is no suggestion that these 'saints' were then assumed into heaven;
presumably they subsequently returned to their graves. 109 The Virgin Mary, The Celebration of Faith, Sermons, vol. 3 (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir's
Seminary Press, 1995), p. 92. 110 Quoted in Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain, Synaxaristis, vol. 2, p.320, note 1. 111 Homilies on the Dormition 1:8 (tr. Daley, p.114). 112 Homilies on the Dormition 3:5 (tr. Daley, p.140).
Rejoice, radiant foreshadowing of the resurrection glory ….
Rejoice, hope of eternal blessings.117
Despite the fact that belief in the Bodily Assumption forms part, as we have argued,
of the liturgical tradition of the Orthodox Church – despite the fact, moreover, that it is
intimately linked with our faith in the resurrection of the body, with our theology of the
human person, and with our expectation of cosmic transfiguration nevertheless this is not
something that we Orthodox wish to see defined as a dogma. We prefer to maintain the
apophatic reticence that the Church's hymnography displays when speaking of Mary's final
glorification. Agreeing with that shrewd Englishman William of Ockham (c.1285-1347),
Orthodoxy considers that dogmas, like entities, are not to be multiplied without reason. As Fr
Alexander Schmemann insists:
Mary is not part of the Church's Kerygma, whose only content is Christ. She
is the inner secret of communion with Christ. The Church preaches Christ, not
Mary. But communion with Christ reveals Mary as the secret joy within the
Church. 'In her,' says a hymn, 'rejoices all creation.'118
Speaking in general about devotion to the Virgin Mary – but his words apply more especially
to her Assumption – Fr Alexander continues:
It is not an object of faith, but its fruit; not a nota ecclesiae but the self-
revelation of the Church; not even a doctrine, but the life and fragrance of
doctrine in us.119
113 Homilies on the Dormition 3:9 (tr. Daley, p.145).114 Le sens des fêtes, vol. 1, p.292. 115 15 August, Matins, Lands 2 (FM, p.525). 116 Le sens des fêtes, vol. 1, p.293. 117 Ikos 5, 6, 7 and 8: (The Lenten Triodion, pp. 426, 427, 429, 430). 118 The Virgin Mary, p. 89.
We do well to heed Vladimir Lossky's warning: 'Let us therefore keep silence, and let us not
try to dogmatize about the supreme glory of the Mother of God.'120 As we say in the Akathist
Hymn: 'Rejoice, faith in that which must be guarded by silence.'121 It is enough for us to
repeat the opening words of the first hymn at Great Vespers for the Feast: 'O marvellous
wonder!'122
119 The Virgin Mary, p. 93. 120 'Panagia', in Mascall, The Mother of God, p. 35; reprinted in V. Lossky, In the Image and Likeness
of God (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1974), p. 209. 121 Ikos 2 (The Lenten Triodion, p. 423). 122 15 August, Great Vespers, Lord, I have cried 1 (FM, p. 506).