The Veneration of the Mother of God During Her Earthly Life

FROM APOSTOLIC TIMES and to our days all who truly love Christ give veneration to Her Who
gave birth to Him, raised Him and protected Him in the days of His youth. If God the Father
chose Her, God the Holy Spirit descended upon Her, and God the Son dwelt in Her, submitted
to Her in the days of His youth, was concerned for Her when hanging on the Crossthen should
not everyone who confesses the Holy Trinity venerate Her?
Still in the days of Her earthly life the friends of Christ, the Apostles, manifested a great
concern and devotion for the Mother of the Lord, especially the Evangelist John the Theologian,
who, fulfilling the will of Her Divine Son, took Her to himself and took care for Her as for a
mother from the time when the Lord uttered to him from the Cross the words: Behold thy
mother.”
The Evangelist Luke painted a number of images of Her, some together with the Pre-eternal
Child, others without Him. When he brought them and showed them to the Most Holy Virgin,
She approved them and said: “The grace of My Son shall be with them, ” and repeated the
hymn She had once sung in the house of Elizabeth: “My soul doth magnify the Lord, and My
spirit hath rejoiced in God My Saviour.”
However, the Virgin Mary during Her earthly life avoided the glory which belonged to Her as
the Mother of the Lord. She preferred to live in quiet and prepare Herself for the departure into
eternal life. To the last day of Her earthly life She took care to prove worthy of the Kingdom of
Her Son, and before death She prayed that He might deliver Her soul from the malicious spirits
that meet human souls on the way to heaven and strive to seize them so as to take them away
with them to hades. The Lord fulfilled the prayer of His Mother and in the hour of Her death
Himself came from heaven with a multitude of angels to receive Her soul.
Since the Mother of God had also prayed that She might bid farewell to the Apostles, the Lord
gathered for Her death all the Apostles, except Thomas, and they were brought by an invisible
power on that day to Jerusalem from all the ends of the inhabited world, where they were
preaching, and they were present at Her blessed translation into eternal life. The Apostles gave
Her most pure body over to burial with sacred hymns, and on the third day they opened the
tomb so as once more to venerate the remains of the Mother of God together with the Apostle
Thomas, who had arrived then in Jerusalem. But they did not find the body in the tomb and in
perplexity they returned to their own place; and then, during their meal, the Mother of God
Herself appeared to them in the air, shining with heavenly light, and informed them that Her
Son had glorified Her body also, and She, resurrected, stood before His Throne. At the same
time, She promised to be with them always.
The Apostles greeted the Mother of God with great joy and began to venerate Her not only as
the Mother of their beloved Teacher and Lord, but also as their heavenly helper, as a protector
of Christians and intercessor for the whole human race before the Righteous Judge. And
everywhere the Gospel of Christ was preached, His Most Pure Mother also began to be
glorified.

The First Enemies of the Veneration of The Mother of God

THE MORE the faith of Christ spread and the Name of the Saviour of the world was glorified on
earth, and together with Him also She Who was vouchsafed to be the Mother of the God-Man,-
the more did the hatred of the enemies of Christ increase towards Her. Mary was the Mother of
Jesus. She manifested a hitherto unheard-of example of purity and righteousness, and
furthermore, now departed from this life, She was a mighty support for Christians, even. though
invisible to bodily eyes. Therefore all who hated Jesus Christ and did not believe in Him, who
did not understand His teaching, or to be more precise, did not wish to understand as the
Church understood, who wished to replace the preaching of Christ with their own human
reasonings-all of these transferred their hatred for Christ, for the Gospel and the Church, to the
Most Pure Virgin Mary. They wished to belittle the Mother, so as thereby to destroy faith also in
Her Son, to create a false picture of Her among men in order to have the opportunity to rebuild
the whole Christian teaching on a different foundation. In the womb of Mary, God and man
were joined. She was the One Who served as it were as the ladder for the Son of God, Who
descended from heaven. To strike a blow at Her veneration means to strike Christianity at the
root, to destroy it in its very foundation.
And the very beginning, of Her heavenly glory was marked on earth by an outburst of malice
and hatred toward Her by unbelievers. When, after Her holy repose, the Apostles were carrying
Her body for burial in Gethsemane, to the place chosen by her, John the Theologian went ahead
carrying the branch from paradise which the Archangel Gabriel had brought to the Holy Virgin
three days before this when he came from heaven to announce to Her Her approaching
departure to the heavenly mansions.
“When Israel went out of Egypt, and the house of Jacob from among a barbarous people,”
chanted St. Peter from Psalm 113; “Alleluia,” sang the whole assembly of the Apostles together
with their disciples, as for example, Dionysius the Areopagite, who likewise had been
miraculously transported at that time to Jerusalem. And while this sacred hymn was being sung,
which was called by the J ews the ” G reat Alleluia, ” that is, the great “Praise ye the Lord,” one
Jewish priest, Athonius, leaped up to the bier and wished to overturn it and throw to the ground
the body of the Mother of God.
The brazenness of Athonius was immediately punished: the Archangel Michael with an invisible
sword cut off his hand, which remained hanging on the bier. The thunderstruck Athonius,
experiencing a tormenting pain, in awareness of his sin, turned in prayer to the Jesus Whom he
had hated up to then and he was immediately healed. He did not delay in accepting Christianity
and confessing it before his former co-religionists, for which he received from them a martyr’s
death. Thus, the attempt to offend the honor of the Mother of God served for Her greater
glorification.
The enemies of Christ resolved not to manifest their lack of veneration for the body of the Most
Pure One further at that time by crude violence, but their malice did not cease. Seeing that
Christianity was spreading everywhere, they began to spread various vile slanders about
Christians. They did not spare the name of the Mother of Christ either, and they invented the
story that Jesus of Nazareth had come from a base and immoral environment, and that His
Mother had associated with a certain Roman soldier.
But here the lie was too evident for this fiction to attract serious attention. The whole family of
Joseph the Betrothed and Mary Herself were known well by the inhabitants of Nazareth and the
surrounding -countryside in their time. Whence bath this man this wisdom and these mighty
works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren: James
and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? (Matt. 13:54–55;
Mark 6:3; Luke 4:22.) So said His fellowcountrymen in Nazareth when Christ revealed before
them in the synagogue His other-worldly wisdom. In small towns the family matters of everyone
are well known; very strict watch was kept then over the purity of married life.
Would people really have behaved with respect towards Jesus, called Him to preach in the
synagogue, if He had been born of illegitimate cohabitation? To Mary the law of Moses would
have been applied, which commanded that such persons be stoned to death; and the Pharisees
would have taken the opportunity many times to reproach Christ for the conduct of His Mother.
But just the contrary was the case. Mary enjoyed great respect; at Cana She was an honored
guest at the wedding, and even when Her Son was condemned, no one allowed himself to
ridicule or censure His Mother.
Attempts of Jews and Heretics to Dishonor The Ever-Virginity
of Mary

THE JEWISH slanderers soon became convinced that it was almost impossible to dishonor the
Mother of Jesus, and on the basis of the information which they themselves possessed it was
much easier to prove Her praiseworthy life. Therefore, they abandoned this slander of theirs,
which had already been taken up by the pagans (Origen, Against Celsus, I),and strove to prove
at least that Mary was not a virgin when She gave birth to Christ. They even said that the
prophecies concerning the birth-giving of the Messiah by a virgin had never existed, and that
therefore it was entirely in vain that Christians thought to exalt Jesus by the fact that a
prophecy was supposedly being fulfilled in Him.
Jewish translators were found (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion) who made new translations of
the Old Testament into Greek and in these translated the well-known prophecy of Isaiah (Is.
7:14) thus: Behold, a young woman will conceive. They asserted that the Hebrew word Aalma
signified “young woman” and not “virgin,” as stood in the sacred translation of the Seventy
Translators [Septuagint], where this passage had been translated “Behold, a virgin shall
conceive.”
By this new translation they wished to prove that Christians, on the basis of an incorrect
translation of the word Aalma, thought to ascribe to Mary something completely impossible a
birth-giving without a man, while in actuality the birth of Christ was not in the least different
from other human births.
However, the evil intention of the new translators was clearly revealed because by a
comparison of various passages in the Bible it became clear that the word Aalma signified
precisely “virgin.” And indeed, not only the Jews, but even the pagans, on the basis of their own
traditions and various prophecies, expected the Redeemer of the world to be born of a Virgin.
The Gospels clearly stated that the Lord Jesus had been born of a Virgin.
How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? asked Mary, Who had given a vow of virginity, of
the Archangel Gabriel, who had informed Her of the birth of Christ.
And the Angel replied: The Holy Spirit shall come upon Thee, and the power of the Most High
shall overshadow Thee; wherefore also that which is to be born shall be holy, and shall be
called the Son of God (Luke 1:34–35). Later the Angel appeared also to righteous Joseph, who
had wished to put away Mary from his house, seeing that She had conceived without entering
into conjugal cohabitation with him. To Joseph the Archangel Gabriel said: Fear not to take unto
thee Mary thy wife: for that which is begotten in Her is of the Holy Spirit, and he reminded him
of the prophecy of Isaiah that a virgin would conceive (Matt. 1: 18–2 5).The rod of Aaron that
budded, the rock torn away from the mountain without hands, seen by Nebuchadnezzar in a
dream and interpreted by the Prophet Daniel, the closed gate seen by the Prophet Ezekiel, and
much else in the Old Testament, prefigured the birth-giving of the Virgin. Just as Adam had
been created by the Word of God from the unworked and virgin earth, so also the Word of God
created flesh for Himself from a virgin womb when the Son of God became the new Adam so as
to correct the fall into sin of the first Adam (St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Book 111).
The seedless birth of Christ can and could be denied only by those who deny the Gospel,
whereas the Church of Christ from of old confesses Christ “incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the
Virgin Mary.” But the birth of God from the Ever-Virgin was a stumbling stone for those who
wished to call themselves Christians but did not wish to humble themselves in mind and be
zealous for purity of life. The pure life of Mary was a reproach for those who were impure also
in their thoughts. So as to show themselves Christians, they did not dare to deny that Christ
was born of a Virgin, but they began to affirm that Mary remained a virgin only until she
brought forth her first-born son, Jesus (Matt. 1:25).
“After the birth of Jesus,” said the false teacher Helvidius in the 4th century, and likewise many
others before and after him, “Mary entered into conjugal life with Joseph and had from him
children, who are called in the Gospels the brothers and sisters of Christ.” But the word “until”
does not signify that Mary remained a virgin only until a certain time. The word “until” and
words similar to it often signify eternity. In the Sacred Scripture it is said of Christ: In His days
shall shine forth righteousness and an abundance of peace, until the moon be taken away (Ps.
71:7), but this does not mean that when there shall no longer be a moon at the end of the
world, God’s righteousness shall no longer be; precisely then, rather, will it triumph. And what
does it mean when it says: For He must reign, until He hath put all enemies under His feet?
(I Cor. 15:25). Is the Lord then to reign only for the time until His enemies shall be under His
feet?! And David, in the fourth Psalm of the Ascents says: As the eyes of the handmaid look unto
the bands of her mistress, so do our eyes look unto the Lord our God, until He take pity on
us (Ps. 122:2). Thus, the Prophet will have his eyes toward the Lord until he obtains mercy, but
having obtained it he will direct them to the earth? (Blessed Jerome, “On the Ever-Virginity of
Blessed Mary.”) The Saviour in the Gospel says to the Apostles (Matt. 28:20): Lo, I am with you
always, even unto the end of the world. Thus, after the end of the world the Lord will step away
from His disciples, and then, when they shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel upon twelve
thrones, they will not have the promised communion with the Lord? (Blessed Jerome, op. cit.)
It is likewise incorrect to think that the brothers and sisters of Christ were the children of His
Most Holy Mother. The names of “brother” and “sister” have several distinct meanings.
Signifying a certain kinship between people or their spiritual closeness, these words are used
sometimes in a broader, and sometimes in a narrower sense. In any case, people are called
brothers or sisters if they have a common father and mother, or only a common father or
mother; or even if they have different fathers and mothers, if their parents later (having become
widowed) have entered into marriage (stepbrothers); or if their parents are bound by close
degrees of kinship.
In the Gospel it can nowhere be seen that those who are called there the brothers of Jesus were
or were considered the children of His Mother. On the contrary, it was known that James and
others were the sons of Joseph, the Betrothed of Mary, who was a widower with children from
his first wife. (St. Epiphanius of Cyprus, Panarion, 78.) Likewise, the sister of His Mother, Mary
the wife of Cleopas, who stood with Her at the Cross of the Lord (John 19:25), also had children,
who in view of such close kinship with full right could also be called brothers of the Lord. That
the so-called brothers and sisters of the Lord were not the children of His Mother is clearly
evident from the fact that the Lord entrusted His Mother before His death to His beloved
disciple John. Why should He do this if She had other children besides Him? They themselves
would have taken care of Her. The sons of Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus, did not consider
themselves obliged to take care of one they regarded as their stepmother, or at least did not
have for Her such love as blood children have for parents, and such as the adopted John had
for Her.

Thus, a careful study of Sacred Scripture reveals with complete clarity the insubstantiality of
the objections against the Ever-Virginity of Mary and puts to shame those who teach differently.

The Nestorian Heresy and The Third Ecumenical Council

WHEN ALL THOSE who had dared to speak against the sanctity and purity of the Most Holy
Virgin Mary had been reduced to silence, an attempt was made to destroy Her veneration
as Mother of God. In the 5th century the Archbishop of Constantinople, Nestorius, began
to preach that of Mary had been born only the man Jesus, in Whom the Divinity had
taken abode and dwelt in Him as in a temple. At first he allowed his presbyter Anastasius
and then he himself began to teach openly in church that one should not call Mary
“Theotokos, since She had not given birth to the God-Man. He considered it demeaning
for himself to worship a child wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger.
Such sermons evoked a universal disturbance and unease over the purity of faith, at first in
Constantinople and then everywhere else where rumors of the new teaching spread. St.
Proclus, the disciple of St. John Chrysostom’ who was then Bishop of Cyzicus and later
Archbishop of Constantinople, in the presence of Nestorius gave in church a sermon in which
he confessed the Son of God born in the flesh of the Virgin, Who in truth is the Theotokos
(Birthgiver of God), for already in the womb of the Most Pure One, at the time of Her
conception, the Divinity was united with the Child conceived of the Holy Spirit; and this Child,
even though He was born of the Virgin Mary only in His human nature, still was born already
true God and true man.
Nestorius stubbornly refused to change his teaching, saying that one must distinguish between
Jesus and the Son of God, that Mary should not be called Theotokos, but Christotokos
(Birthgiver of Christ), since the Jesus Who was born of Mary was only the man Christ (which
signifies Messiah, anointed one), like to God’s anointed ones of old, the prophets, only
surpassing them in fullness of communion with God. The teaching of Nestorius thus constituted
a denial of the whole economy of God, for if from Mary only a man was born, then it was not
God Who suffered for us, but a man.
St. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, finding out about the teaching of Nestorius and about the
church disorders evoked by this teaching in Constantinople, wrote a letter to Nestorius, in
which he tried to persuade him to hold the teaching which the Church had confessed from its
foundation, and not to introduce anything novel into this teaching. In addition, St. Cyril wrote to
the clergy and people of Constantinople that they should be firm in the Orthodox faith and not
fear the persecutions by Nestorius against those who were not in agreement with him. St. Cyril
also wrote informing of everything to Rome, to the holy Pope Celestine, who with all his flock
was then firm in Orthodoxy.
St. Celestine for his part wrote to Nestorius and called upon him to preach the Orthodox faith,
and not his own. But Nestorius remained deaf to all persuasion and replied that what he was
preaching was the Orthodox faith, while his opponents were heretics. St. Cyril wrote Nestorius
again and composed twelve anathemas, that is, set forth in twelve paragraphs the chief
differences of the Orthodox teaching from the teaching preached by Nestorius, acknowledging
as excommunicated from the Church everyone who should reject even a single one of the
paragraphs he had composed.
Nestorius rejected the whole of the text composed by St. Cyril and wrote his own exposition of
the teaching which he preached, likewise in twelve paragraphs, giving over to anathema (that
is, excommunication from the Church) everyone who did not accept it. The danger to purity of
faith was increasing all the time. St. Cyril wrote a letter to Theodosius the Younger, who was
then reigning, to his wife Eudocia and to the Emperor’s sister Pulcheria, entreating them
likewise to concern themselves with ecclesiastical matters and restrain the heresy.
It was decided to convene an Ecumenical Council, at which hierarchs, gathered from the ends
of the world, should decide whether the faith preached by Nestorius was Orthodox. As the place
for the council, which was to be the Third Ecumenical Council, they chose the city of Ephesus,
in which the Most Holy Virgin Mary had once dwelt together with the Apostle John the
Theologian. St. Cyril gathered his fellow bishops in Egypt and together with them travelled by
sea to Ephesus. From Antioch overland came John, Archbishop of Antioch, with the Eastern
bishops. The Bishop of Rome, St. Celestine, could not go himself and asked St. Cyril to defend
the Orthodox faith, and in addition he sent from himself two bishops and the presbyter of the
Roman Church Philip, to whom he also gave instructions as to what to say. To Ephesus there
came likewise Nestorius and the bishops of the Constantinople region, and the bishops of
Palestine, Asia Minor, and Cyprus.
On the 10th of the calends of July according to the Roman reckoning, that is, June 22, 43 1, in
the Ephesian Church of the Virgin Mary, the bishops assembled, headed by the Bishop of
Alexandria, Cyril, and the Bishop of Ephesus, Memnon, and took their places. In their
midst was placed a Gospel as a sign of the invisible headship of the Ecumenical Council
by Christ Himself. At first the Symbol of Faith which had been composed by the First and
Second Ecumenical Councils was read; then there was read to the Council the Imperial
Proclamation which was brought by the representatives of the Emperors Theodosius and
Valentinian, Emperors of the Eastern and Western parts of the Empire.
The Imperial Proclamation having been heard, the reading of documents began, and there were
read the Epistles of Cyril and Celestine to Nestorius, as well as the replies of Nestorius. The
Council, by the lips of its members, acknowledged the teaching of Nestorius to be impious and
condemned it, acknowledging Nestorius as deprived of his See and of the priesthood. A decree
was composed concerning this which was signed by about 160 participants of the Council; and
since some of them represented also other bishops who did not have the opportunity to be
personally at the Council, the decree of the Council was actually the decision of more than 200
bishops, who had their Sees in the various regions of the Church at that time, and they
testified that they confessed the Faith which from all antiquity had been kept in their
localities.
Thus the decree of the Council was the voice of the Ecumenical Church, which clearly
expressed its faith that Christ, born of the Virgin, is the true God Who became man; and
inasmuch as Mary gave birth to the perfect Man Who was at the same time perfect God, She
rightly should be revered as THEOTOKOS.
At the end of the session its decree was immediately communicated to the waiting people. The
whole of Ephesus rejoiced when it found out that the veneration of the Holy Virgin had been
defended, for She was especially revered in this city, of which She had been a resident during
Her earthly life and a Patroness after Her departure into eternal life. The people greeted the
Fathers ecstatically when in the evening they returned home after the session. They
accompanied them to their homes with lighted torches and burned incense in the streets.
Everywhere were to be heard joyful greetings, the glorification of the Ever-Virgin, and the
praises of the Fathers who had defended Her name against the heretics. The decree of the
Council was displayed in the streets of Ephesus.
The Council had five more sessions, on June 10 and 11, July 16, 17, and and August 3 1. At
these sessions there were set forth, in six canons, measures for action against those who would
dare to spread the teaching of Nestorius and change the decree of the Council of Ephesus.
At the complaint of the bishops of Cyprus against the pretensions of the Bishop of Antioch, the
Council decreed that the Church of Cyprus should preserve its independence in Church
government, which it had possessed from the Apostles, and that in general none of the bishops
should subject to themselves regions which had been previously independent from them, “lest
under the pretext of priesthood the pride of earthly power should steal in, and lest we lose,
ruining it little by little, the freedom which our Lord Jesus Christ, the Deliverer of all men, has
given us by His Blood.”
The Council likewise confirmed the condemnation of the Pelagian heresy, which taught that
man can be saved by his own powers without the necessity of having the grace of God. It also
decided certain matters of church government, and addressed epistles to the bishops who had
not attended the Council, announcing its decrees and calling upon all to stand on guard for the
Orthodox Faith and the peace of the Church. At the same time the Council acknowledged that
the teaching of the Orthodox Ecumenical Church had been fully and clearly enough set forth in
the Nicaeo-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith, which is why it itself did not compose a new
Symbol of Faith and forbade in future “to compose another Faith,” that is, to compose other
Symbols of Faith or make changes in the Symbol which had been confirmed at the Second
Ecumenical Council.
This latter decree was violated several centuries later by Western Christians when, at first in
separate places, and then throughout the whole Roman Church, there was made to the Symbol
the addition that the Holy Spirit proceeds “and from the Son,” which addition has been
approved by the Roman Popes from the I I th century, even though up until that time their
predecessors, beginning with St. Celestine, firmly kept to the decision of the Council of
Ephesus, which was the Third Ecumenical Council, and fulfilled it.
Thus the peace which had been destroyed by Nestorius settled once more in the Church. The
true Faith had been defended and false teaching accused.
The Council of Ephesus is rightly venerated as Ecumenical, on the same level as the Councils of
Nicaea and Constantinople which preceded it. At it there were present representatives of the
whole Church. Its decisions were accepted by the whole Church “from one end of the universe
to the other.” At it there was confessed the teaching which had been held from Apostolic times.
The Council did not create a new teaching, but it loudly testified of the truth which some had
tried to replace by an invention. It precisely set forth the confession of the Divinity of Christ
Who was born of the Virgin. The belief of the Church and its judgment on this question were
now so clearly expressed that no one could any longer ascribe to the Church his own false
reasonings. In the future there could arise other questions demanding the decision of the whole
Church, but not the question
Subsequent Councils based themselves in their decisions on the decrees of the Councils which
had preceded them. They did not compose a new Symbol of Faith, but only gave an explanation
of it. At the Third Ecumenical Council there was firmly and clearly confessed Previously the
Holy Fathers had accused those who had slandered the immaculate life of the Virgin Mary; and
now concerning those who had tried to lessen Her honor it was proclaimed to all: “He who does
not confess Immanuel to be true God and therefore the Holy Virgin to be Theotokos, because
She gave birth in the flesh to the Word Who is from God the Father and Who became flesh, let
him be anathema (separated from the Church)” (First Anathema of St. Cyril of Alexandria).

Attempts of Iconoclasts to Lessen The Glory of the Queen of

Heaven;
They are put to shame.

AFTER THE THIRD Ecumenical Council, Christians began yet more fervently, both in
Constantinople and in other places, to hasten to the intercession of the Mother of God and their
hopes in Her intercession were not vain. She manifested Her help to innumerable sick people,
helpless people, and those in misfortune. Many times She appeared as defender of
Constantinople against outward enemies, once even showing in visible fashion to St. Andrew
the Fool for Christ Her wondrous Protection over the people who were praying at night in the
Temple of Blachernae.
The Queen of Heaven gave victory in battles to the Byzantine Emperors, which is why they had
the custom to take with them in their campaigns Her Icon of Hodigitria (Guide). She
strengthened ascetics and zealots of Christian life in their battle against human passions and
weaknesses. She enlightened and instructed the Fathers and Teachers of the Church ’ including
St. Cyril of Alexandria himself when he was hesitating to acknowledge the innocence and
sanctity of St. John Chrysostom. The Most Pure Virgin placed hymns in the mouths of the
composers of church hymns, sometimes making renowned singers out of the untalented who
had no gift of song, but who were pious laborers, such as St. Romanus the Sweet-Singer (the
Melodist). Is it therefore surprising that Christians strove to magnify the name of their constant
Intercessor? In Her honor feasts were established, to Her were dedicated wondrous songs, and
Her Images were revered.
The malice of the prince of this world armed the sons of apostasy once more to raise battle
against Immanuel and His Mother in this same Constantinople, which revered now, as Ephesus
had previously, the Mother of God as its Intercessor. Not daring at first to speak openly against
the Champion General, they wished to lessen Her glorification by forbidding the veneration of
the Icons of Christ and His saints, calling this idol-worship. The Mother of God now also
strengthened zealots of piety in the battle for the veneration of Images, manifesting many signs
from Her Icons and healing the severed hand of St. John of Damascus who had written in
defence of the Icons.
The persecution against the venerators of Icons and Saints ended again in the victory and
triumph of Orthodoxy, for the veneration given to the Icons ascends to those who are depicted
in them; and the holy ones of God are venerated as friends of God for the sake of the Divine
grace which dwelt in them, in accordance with the words of the Psalm: “Most precious to me
are Thy friends.” The Most Pure Mother of God was glorified with special honor in heaven and
on earth, and She, even in the days of the mocking of the holy Icons, manifested through them
so many wondrous miracles that even today we remember them with contrition. The hymn “In
Thee All Creation Rejoices, 0 Thou Who Art Full of Grace,” and the Icon of the Three Hands
remind us of the healing of St. John Damascene before this Icon; the depiction of the Iveron
Icon of the Mother of God reminds us of the miraculous deliverance from enemies by this Icon,
which had been thrown in the sea by a widow who was unable to save it.
No persecutions against those who venerated the Mother of God and all that is bound up with
the memory of Her could lessen the love of Christians for their Intercessor. The rule was
established that every series of hymns in the Divine services should end with a hymn or verse in
honor of the Mother of God (the so-called “Theotokia”). Many times in the year Christians in all
corners of the world gather together in church, as before they gathered together, to praise Her,
to thank Her for the benefactions She has shown, and to beg mercy.
But could the adversary of Christians, the devil, who goeth about roaring like a lion, seeking
whom he may devour (I Peter 5:8), remain an indifferent spectator to the glory of the
Immaculate One? Could he acknowledge himself as defeated, and cease to wage warfare
against the truth through men who do his will? And so, when all the universe resounded with
the good news of the Faith of Christ, when everywhere the name of the Most Holy One was
invoked, when the earth was filled with churches, when the houses of Christians were adorned
with Icons depicting Her-then there appeared and began to spread a new false teaching about
the Mother of God. This false teaching is dangerous in that many cannot immediately
understand to what degree it undermines the true veneration of the Mother of God.

Zeal Not According to Knowledge (Romans 10:2)

The corruption by the Latins, in the newly invented dogma of the “Immaculate Conception, ” of
the true veneration of the Most Holy Mother of God and Ever- Virgin Mary.
WHEN THOSE WHO censured the immaculate life of the Most Holy Virgin had been 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 reality denied all Her virtues.
This teaching is called that of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, and it was
accepted by the followers of the Papal throne of Rome. The teaching is this- that “the All-
blessed Virgin Mary in the first instant of Her Conception, by the special grace of Almighty God
and by a special privilege, for the sake of the future merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the
human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin” (Bull of Pope
Pius IX concerning the new dogma). In other words, the Mother of God at Her very conception
was preserved from original sin and, by the grace of God, was placed in a state where it was
impossible for Her to have personal sins.
Christians had not heard of this before the 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
East and West)
Thus, neither on the foundation of theological writings, nor on the foundation of miraculous
manifestations which contradicted each other, could the Latin flock distinguish for a long time
where the truth was. Roman Popes until Sixtus IV (end of the 15th century) remained apart
from these disputes, and only this Pope in 1475 approved a service in which the teaching of the
Immaculate Conception was 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 prevail against the Church
(Matt. 16:18) is promised only to the True, Universal Church; but upon those who have fallen
away from it are fulfilled the words: As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in
the vine; so neither can ye, except ye abide in Me (John 15:4).
It is true that in the very definition of the new dogma it is said that a new teaching is not being
established, but that there is only being proclaimed as the church’s that which always existed in
the church and which has been held by many Holy Fathers, excerpts from whose writings are
cited. However, all the cited references speak only of the exalted sanctity of the Virgin Mary
and of Her immaculateness, and give Her various names which define Her purity and spiritual
might; but nowhere is there any word of the immaculateness of Her conception. Meanwhile,
these same Holy Fathers in other places say that only Jesus Christ is completely pure of every
sin, while all men, being born of Adam, have borne a flesh subject to the law of sin.
None of the ancient Holy Fathers say that God in miraculous fashion purified the Virgin Mary
while yet in the womb; and many directly indicate that the Virgin Mary, just as all men, endured
a battle with sinfulness, but was victorious over temptations and was saved by Her Divine Son.
Commentators of the Latin confession likewise say that the Virgin Mary was saved by Christ.
But they understand this in the sense that Mary was preserved from the taint of original sin in
view of the future merits of Christ (Bull on the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception). The
Virgin Mary, according to their teaching, received in advance, as it were, the gift which Christ
brought to men by His sufferings and death on the Cross. Moreover, speaking of the torments of
the Mother of God which She endured standing at the Cross of Her Beloved Son, and in general
of the sorrows with which the life of the Mother of God was filled, they consider them an
addition to the sufferings of Christ and consider Mary to be our CoRedemptress.
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 of Truth (John 14:6).

The Orthodox Veneration of The Mother of God

THE ORTHODOX CHURCH teaches about the Mother of God that which Sacred Tradition and
Sacred Scripture have informed concerning Her, and daily it glorifies Her in its temples, asking
Her help and defense. Knowing that She is pleased only by those praises which correspond to
Her actual glory, the Holy Fathers and hymn-writers have entreated Her and Her Son to teach
them how to hymn Her. “Set a rampart about my mind, 0 my Christ, for I make bold to sing the
praise of Thy pure Mother” (Ikos of the Dormition). “The Church teaches that Christ was truly
born of Mary 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 (Luke 11:27,
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).