The Akathist - A Pleasant Surprise
It's been a while since I last posted about my difficulties with the Virgin Mary. I left off last time with three prayers from the Jordanville prayer book that was causing me great difficulty. See here for that blog.
One of those prayers I highlighted last time I discovered was part of something quite a bit larger. Here again is the phrase that I could barely stomach:
To thee the Champion Leader, we thy servants dedicate a feast of victory and thanksgiving, as ones rescued out of sufferings, O Theotokos; but as thou art one with might which is invincible, from all dangers that can be, do thou deliver us, that we may cry to thee: Rejoice, thou Bride unwedded! (pg 55)Investigating this prayer, I was introduced to the much larger work from which this comes: The Akathist to the Most Holy Theotokos. Specifically, this section is known as the "Kontakion" (a hymn) that was added to the Akathist in 626AD when it was officially adopted by the Church.
The history of the Akathist can be found in many places.
While the Emperor of Byzantium Heracleios was on an expedition to fight the aggression of the Persians on their own grounds, there appeared outside the walls of Constantinople barbaric hordes, mostly Avars. The siege lasted a few months, and it was apparent that the outnumbered troops of the Queen City were reaching desperation. However as history records, the faith of the people worked the impossible. The Venerable Patriarch Sergius with the Clergy and the Official of Byzantium Vonos, endlessly marched along the great walls of Constantinople with an Icon of the Theotokos in hand, and bolstered the faith of the defenders of freedom. The miracle came soon after. Unexpectedly, as the chronicler narrates, a great storm with huge tidal waves destroyed most of the fleet of the enemy, and full retreat ensued.The Akathist is a wonderful hymn to the Theotokos, and during Lent I purposed to sing it at least once a week in order to practice getting used to ascribing to the Theotokos invincible power and might.
The faithful of Constantinople spontaneously filled the Church of the Theotokos at Vlachernae on the Golden Horn, and with the Patriarch Sergius officiating, they prayed all night singing praises to the Virgin Mary without sitting. Hence the title of the Hymn "Akathistos", in Greek meaning 'not seated'. [Taken from http://www.orthodoxchristian.info/pages/Akathist.htm]
But oh what blasphemy you say! To ascribe to Mary powers only belonging to God. This is where one needs to step back and take a deep breath. The Kingdom of God is not so restricted as my Protestant upbringing would suggest. As I've tackled one difficult subject after another, I have come across what seems to be a helpful realization: if there's something bothering me about Orthodox theology, then it's probably due to a dichotomy I've created in my own mind that doesn't actually exist.
For example:
- If Mary can rescue us out of sufferings (like the Kontakion suggests), and Christ can rescue us out of sufferings (like everything about the Christian faith suggests), then you can either be rescued out of sufferings by Mary, or Christ, but not both. If Mary, then you are not relying on Christ to rescue you and you are in abysmal shape because Mary is just a human. So sad for you.
- If Mary has invincible might (like the Kontakion suggests) and Christ has invincible might (again like every Christian will claim) then you can either have Mary be invincible or Christ, but not both. If Mary is invincible then you are in abysmal shape because Mary is just a human. So sad for you.
- If Mary can deliver us from dangers (like the Kontakion suggests), and Christ can deliver us from dangers (like everyone says), then you can either be delivered from danger by Mary, or Christ, but not both. If Mary, then you are not relying on Christ to deliver you from dangers and you are in abysmal shape because Mary is just a human. So sad for you.
These examples clarify the thought process behind my Protestant tendencies, and I doubt I'm alone in them. Western Protestants take issue with Mary because they set up a dichotomy in their minds between Mary and Christ. This becomes a Mary vs. Christ in their minds and then the rest follows from there.
But the truth is, there is no dichotomy. It isn't Mary vs. Christ. It's Mary with Christ. Without Christ, Mary cannot deliver us from any danger. It is only through Christ that we can call upon her to deliver us. She can pray for us to Christ that we be delivered.
But is she really invincible? Surely not - no human can be invincible. I posed this question to an Orthodox Facebook group and got many responses. The best one to this point was short and sweet:
And honouring her does not in any way take away from Christ. In the same way that if you honoured my mother, I would feel honoured. I wouldn't say "Hey, why are you dishonouring me by honouring my mother!" That doesn't make sense, but that is the dichotomy that existed in my mind, and probably in your mind as well, if you are a Protestant.
The obvious Protestant response at this point is: "Look. You can't compare the relationship between Mary and Jesus to the relationship between you and your mother. It's different. Jesus is God, and Mary is a human. It doesn't matter if you would be dishonoured by someone not honouring your mother over someone else, but you are just a human. Christ doesn't see Mary any differently than us, Ok?"
That is what I use to think as well. But this belief turns out to be dangerously close to rejecting the incarnation.
"Whoa, that's a bold statement! What are you talking about?"
Glad you asked. The amazing thing about the incarnation is that God became man. That is a mind-blowing concept that no one is able to wrap their head around. And the Church spent hundreds of years defending this truth from heresy on both sides. One side wanted to make Jesus not God, since he died and was hungry and was tired, and generally showed other signs of weakness. The other side wanted to make Jesus' divinity overwhelm his humanity so much that essentially all that was human was swallowed up and paled in comparison to his divinity. This heresy is known as Eutychianism and the Church condemned it as a heresy in the 5th century at the 4th ecumenical council.
To say that Christ's relationship with His mother is different than any other human's relationship with his mother is bordering on this heresy, because the one who believes this, as I did, is probably assuming that Mary was simply a vessel that God chose and after she gave birth she was no more connected with him than anybody else. He was God, and she was a human. After the birth, her job was over.
This is getting long, but it comes down to one issue that needs to be resolved: Mary gave birth to Christ. That is an amazing fact. If Christ is God and Mary gave birth to him, then you only have two options: 1) diminish Christ in a way that says that Mary only gave birth to the human part, or 2) exalt Mary because she gave birth to God. The first one is a heresy condemned by the 4th ecumenical council and believed canonically by no one for the first 1600 years of the Church - even the first reformers spoke of Mary as the Birthgiver of God.
The fact is, if you believe Mary to be not the Birthgiver of God, and not worthy of our honouring her, you are dishonouring Christ, and you are in direct opposition to the Apostolic tradition handed down to us by basically all Christians for the first 1600 years. If you feel comfortable with that, then you obviously don't care about historicity of Christian doctrines, and if that's the case, how do you know you are right about anything? Time to start thinking about what you are basing your beliefs upon. Time to start looking at those who have gone before you with respect and humility.
Joey
But the truth is, there is no dichotomy. It isn't Mary vs. Christ. It's Mary with Christ. Without Christ, Mary cannot deliver us from any danger. It is only through Christ that we can call upon her to deliver us. She can pray for us to Christ that we be delivered.
But is she really invincible? Surely not - no human can be invincible. I posed this question to an Orthodox Facebook group and got many responses. The best one to this point was short and sweet:
do you REALLY think the devil or any of his demons could defeat or overpower the Theotokos? Wouldn't she BE invincible in battle against the powers of darkness? How could she NOT be?Obviously there is an implication that she wouldn't be invincible without the power of Christ. But of all the humans that have ever lived, she was chosen to be the Mother of God. And she humbly and willingly obeyed Him, and thus brought about the salvation of the Christian race. The fact is that there wouldn't be any powers of darkness that can go up against her. She is, therefore, for all practical purposes, invincible.
And honouring her does not in any way take away from Christ. In the same way that if you honoured my mother, I would feel honoured. I wouldn't say "Hey, why are you dishonouring me by honouring my mother!" That doesn't make sense, but that is the dichotomy that existed in my mind, and probably in your mind as well, if you are a Protestant.
The obvious Protestant response at this point is: "Look. You can't compare the relationship between Mary and Jesus to the relationship between you and your mother. It's different. Jesus is God, and Mary is a human. It doesn't matter if you would be dishonoured by someone not honouring your mother over someone else, but you are just a human. Christ doesn't see Mary any differently than us, Ok?"
That is what I use to think as well. But this belief turns out to be dangerously close to rejecting the incarnation.
"Whoa, that's a bold statement! What are you talking about?"
Glad you asked. The amazing thing about the incarnation is that God became man. That is a mind-blowing concept that no one is able to wrap their head around. And the Church spent hundreds of years defending this truth from heresy on both sides. One side wanted to make Jesus not God, since he died and was hungry and was tired, and generally showed other signs of weakness. The other side wanted to make Jesus' divinity overwhelm his humanity so much that essentially all that was human was swallowed up and paled in comparison to his divinity. This heresy is known as Eutychianism and the Church condemned it as a heresy in the 5th century at the 4th ecumenical council.
To say that Christ's relationship with His mother is different than any other human's relationship with his mother is bordering on this heresy, because the one who believes this, as I did, is probably assuming that Mary was simply a vessel that God chose and after she gave birth she was no more connected with him than anybody else. He was God, and she was a human. After the birth, her job was over.
This is getting long, but it comes down to one issue that needs to be resolved: Mary gave birth to Christ. That is an amazing fact. If Christ is God and Mary gave birth to him, then you only have two options: 1) diminish Christ in a way that says that Mary only gave birth to the human part, or 2) exalt Mary because she gave birth to God. The first one is a heresy condemned by the 4th ecumenical council and believed canonically by no one for the first 1600 years of the Church - even the first reformers spoke of Mary as the Birthgiver of God.
The fact is, if you believe Mary to be not the Birthgiver of God, and not worthy of our honouring her, you are dishonouring Christ, and you are in direct opposition to the Apostolic tradition handed down to us by basically all Christians for the first 1600 years. If you feel comfortable with that, then you obviously don't care about historicity of Christian doctrines, and if that's the case, how do you know you are right about anything? Time to start thinking about what you are basing your beliefs upon. Time to start looking at those who have gone before you with respect and humility.
Joey