www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Dormition/Assumption

Dear David,

Thanks for the inquiry.

I'll next be back at my chanter's stand on Saturday evening, God willing. I'll relay the verses to you next week.

I think that the verses were in English and pulled from the Holy Myrrhbearers' Monastery website for the Post Feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos. ESPECIALLY if they were really from the Post Feast, it sort of adds to my point that the tradition has sent varying messages, not necessarily contradictory, but paradoxical, regarding the falling asleep of the Most Holy Theotokos.

May she save us through her example!

In Christ,
Andrew

Dear Andrew,

I know Fr. Pulcini personally and consider him a good friend. In fact, before he converted, he was regularly attending my father's parish in Ambridge and I know him well.

St. Vladimir's is first, a graduate school of theology. Fr. Pulcini is an excellent theologian and academic, there is no doubt, and it is a shame that he did not take the post. There are differing theological opinions between theologians. However, the first quote I posted was written by Fr. Hopko, who is the foremost Dogmatic Theologian in this country. He chose to describe the feast as her "assumption..." "death, resurrection and glorification."

I think the point is that we should be very clear on what the teaching of the church is, and it is as I posted before. I made no claim whether you or Fr. Pulcini needed to accept them, only that, "this is the teaching of the church." So instead of the question of Fr. Pulcini, let's ask, "is Fr. Hopko completely wrong in this matter," let alone most books and sources in English of which I am aware?

Priest Thomas

Dear Fr. Thomas,

Again, with all due respect, Fr. Pulcini presents in his books what he believes in his opinion to be the teaching of the Orthodox Church. Fr. Hopko does likewise in his books.

Generally, the teaching of the Orthodox Churches in the Greco-Byzantine tradition is that one does not kiss the chalice after communing. Generally, the teaching of the Churches in the Slavic tradition is that one does kiss the chalice after communing. But these teachings are not critical to our salvation.

So that is my very point. There are two teachings, but neither is a dogma, because neither is critical to our salvation.

I was remiss for not commending you some months ago for pointing out to Alex Roman the difference between dogmata and other levels of instruction. Certainly, you do agree that the teaching as presented in Fr. Hopko's publications, is no more a dogma than the teaching presented in Fr. Pulcini's. One may be a minority and the other majority opinion, but both are fully acceptable Orthodox teachings.

This is not the case in the Catholic Communion of Churches.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Dear Andrew,

What happens in a monastery (that "chooses" not to believe this doctrine) when it comes time to read the Synaxarion after the 6th ode of the Canon, and they get to the part that says, "For they found it [her tomb] empty of the holy body, and containing only the winding sheet, which remained as a consolation for those who were about to grieve and for all the faithful, and as a sure witness of the Translation."? Do they skip that part?

Priest Thomas

Dear David,

By the grace of God, I was able to reach my Reader's stand today!

The verses are from the Post Feast of the Dormition (August 16th through August 22nd) and so would be sung at any Great Vespers during that time. I chanted them on Saturday the 16th.

"The source of life is laid in the grave, and the tomb becomes a ladder into heaven! Rejoice, Gethsemane, the holy abode of the Theotokos! Come, O faithful, with Gabriel leading, let us cry: Rejoice, O Full of Grace, the Lord is with you, granting the world through you great mercy!"

The next verse reminds us that she was "translated from earth to heaven."

Interestingly, it also invocates: "Virgins, ascend on high with the Mother of the King!"

In the verse following "Glory to the Father..." this translation goes on to say,

"Come all who love to keep the Feasts, come let us crown the Church with songs, as the Ark of God goes to her rest. For today heaven opens wide as it receives the mother of Him who cannot be contained. The earth, as it yields up the source of Life, is robed in blessing and majesty. The hosts of angels, present with the fellowship of the apostles, gaze in great fear at her who bore the Cause of life, now that she is translated from life to Life. Let us all venerate and implore her: Forget not, O Lady, your ties of kinship with those who keep in faith the feast of your all-holy Dormition!"

In the Aposticha verses, we sing:

"Sing, O people! Sing the praises of the Mother of our God; for today she delivers HER SOUL (my emphasis), full of light, into the immaculate hands of Him who was made incarnate of her without seed. And she entreats Him without ceasing to grant the earth peace and great mercy!"


So in the hymns of the Post Feast, which could be sung either before or after the third day after the Dormition (remembering that other, non-liturgical parts of the tradition recount that Thomas found an empty tomb on the third day) we have the hymns of the Post Feast instructing us that she delivered "her soul" to heaven. But why the silence regarding her most pure body?

Also, as we read in the second verse, all "virgins" are being called upon to follow her example in their own deaths. Is this, therefore, an indication that others (virgins) may also be assumed bodily into heaven prior to the resurrection?

Finally, in the verse following "Glory to the Father..." (that I presented fully above) we heard that "the apostles, gaze in great fear at her who bore the Cause of life, now that she is translated from life to Life." I ask, were they looking upon an icon of her who "is translated from life to Life" or upon the body of the Theotokos herself "now that she is translated from life to Life?" Were they watching her body as it rose to heaven? [Does any part of the tradition hold that anyone observed this assumption, not that lack of such a witness should be a cause for doubting her bodily assumption, but that lack of such a witness would seem to make my explanation the more logical understanding of the verse]. My understanding of this verse is that apostles were viewing "her" body in its tomb at Gethsemane after "her soul" had departed to heaven [been "translated to life"].

Again, the terminology wholy, consistently, and appropriately applied to her Dormition throughout the patristic texts is "translated to life" and not "resurrected from the dead."

Again, if Old Testament figures were also "translated to life" and that term means "resurrected from the dead," how do we explain the scriptures that say that Christ is the "first fruits" of the resurrection and the "first-born" of the dead?

I think that it is clear, pointing again to the Rev. Daley's book "On the Dormition" and without belaboring too much further here, that the teachings regarding her Dormition and its aftermath have been various, centered around her death and translation to life, and never been a cause of division amongst the faithful.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Dear Father Thomas,

I don't know. They wouldn't let Fr. Pulcini or me enter the place!

But really, a monastery, seminary, or parish doesn't believe anything. It is a place made up of numerous sinners each with his own mistakes, hopefully none of a doctrinal error. (One of my classmates in seminary was convinced that the ten commandments did not appply to Orthodox Christians.)

I would think that they would sing or read whatever the ecclesiarch or abbot directed them to sing or read. That's what I would do. If a brother disagreed with something left out or something included, then he might discuss it with either of them, or if he considered it a serious enough problem, with the bishop and, ultimately, the synod of bishops.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

At the Daily Vespers that we had before our bible study this evening, a few things came to mind that I wanted to share on the subject. They are not dogmatic pronouncements as much as theological reflections, FWIW. They are my own opinions and as such, could be way off base.

First, the verses for the Aposticha stood out. From Psalm 132, "Arise, O Lord, and go to Your resting place. You and the ark of your might." Most OT readings for the feasts of the Theotokos are seen as prophecies fulfilled. One of the most common OT figures in which we see the Virgin is the ark, that is, the ark which holds the law. She is the one who held Christ in her womb.

If that is so (I think we can all agree on this) then this verse from Psalms seems to imply that as Jesus returns to His dwelling, after the Resurrection, he also takes His ark, that is, his mother.

In that same vein, we place the icon of the Platytera in the sanctuary. The icon depicts the Virgin Mary with her son seated "on her." This is actually an icon of the fulfilled "mercy seat" where in the OT the blood was applied to the mercy seat for the fogiveness of sins. The blood of Jesus is present as an eternal offering before the Father (Heb 10:19). If the earthly mercy seat was present in the Holy of Holies, is not the real mercy seat, the Virgin Mary, who stands for all of humanity, also present in the Holy of Holies, just as we have the icon of "the mercy seat" in our sanctuaries? That is, the reality is fulfilled in the pattern of the Old Testament.

Just some random thoughts that came to me tonight at Vespers

This is a nice discussion to read; thanks to both of you for your posts. I have a background question to ask relvant to your discussion.

Do the Orthodox have a specific list of dogma "required for salvation", and a hierarchy of teachings and allowable responses? (Of course the Latins have this sort of thing all spelled out in great detail; there's a fascinating page at EWTN) Would assent-required teachings simply be whatever is included in the canons of the councils, or are there further qualifications?

How would one even go about knowing what, though deemed true, is NOT required?

Andrew, ISTM, that the idea of seeking the most parsimonius faith - adopting a dissenting view on teachings that are not "required" - could readily, in a synergistic way, be a major hindrance to one's development. What is the point of such an approach? Ploughboy Orthodoxy?
Burning bridges? Exercising your private judgement?

I did want to make one comment on a post much earlier in the thread. Someone had mentioned that someone had greeted them with "the Virgin is Risen!" or something like this. To me, this would be entirely improper. First, of course, this is not in the Tradition. But more importantly, much more importantly, we celebrate the resurrection of Christ because he is Life Itself. Death could not hold Him captive. He is raised by the power of God which was in Himself. The Resurrection of Christ is the knowledge that He is Life. That's why we always say "Christ IS Risen" and not "Christ HAS Risen" as if it was simply some historical event that is done and over with. His Resurrection is a present reality, because only He holds the power over death and hell. However, the Virgin Mary is translated as an extraordinary event by her Son. She does not do this herself. She must be saved, she must be raised, she must be redeemed and she must be renewed. She is raised because we will all be raised. Christ is Risen because he is Life Everlasting. These are two very different realities, and therefore it would be improper to say things like "Mary is Risen" or anything which would somehow equate those realities.

Priest Thomas

Dear Fr. Thomas,

Thank you for the posting and exegesis regarding the ark.

I wholeheartedly agree that He takes her, the ark, with Himself, that is, that she is "tranlated to life."

I think that your second post regarding why it is improper to say "Mary is Risen" re-emphasizes the opinion that I and numerous others, including most of the fathers (by omission, I grant) that association of the term "resurrection" with the Dormition Feast is not appropriate. On this point, Daley's "On the Dormition" is excellent.

Liturgically, we have no qualms using "resurrected from the dead" when it is appropriate, for example, for Lazarus. Of course, his resurrection is not THE resurrection on THAT last day, so it is not permanent and he dies again. It is only a sign of what is to come, but we do use the word "resurrection."

Liturgically, for the All-Holy Theotokos, we don't.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Dear djs,

I would like you to consider rephrasing your question to me. Perhaps you would care to send such privately.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Dear Andrew,

I have PM'd you.

A point of perhaps more general interest is the meanting of "translate".
Although the first entry is termed archaic, this meaning is maintained in mechanics, a translation being a movement of a body from one location to another with rotation or internal deformation of that body. (Also, translation of relics). The third entry is most interesting; I was unaware of this use of "translate", which could be of significance is elucidating the meaning of the texts you cite.

Dear djs,

Thanks for that post! Now, we are in progress again! Let's look at "Translation."

First of all, nothing is archaic in relation to scripture, but, rather, many "dictionary" definitions are based upon scripture and Judaeo-Christian traditions more ancient than many words or even languages themselves. How old is English really?

Definition #1 is fine by me. I would bet, but cannot prove now, that Definition #3 formed as the word "translated" became associated with the movement of bodies to heaven in the Christian tradition. Let's face it, for a thousand years, say from 400 to 1400, Christian culture was high culture and drove many common understandings!

You make an excellent response, especially the reference to Hebrews, which I had largely forgotten! Of course, it is an "NT" recounting of Genesis 5:22-24 addressed to Jews in the early Church. The polemic relies heavily on Jewish tradition to convince them that this Jesus of Nazareth is the long-awaited Messiah.

In this passage in Genesis, after recounting how long Enoch "had" lived, it continues:

"And ALL (my emphasis) the days of Enoch were 365 years: And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him."

Scripturally, when someone "is not" it means that they are dead. Remember the sound of Rachel crying for her children, "for they were not."

But this verse in Hebrews adds that "God took him."

Scripturally, we have something similar for Moses, "Yet Michael the Archangel Michael when contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses..." in the Book of Jude, but nowhere else in scripture.

And for Elijah, God also took him up.

So certainly, one can argue for a translation of the bodies. The tradition surrounding the Theotokos is non-scriptural, but widespread. But for Moses, Enoch, and Elijah, it is relatively clear that God "took" or "translated" them because they had pleased him. And, certainly, the Theotokos pleased God more than any other human, thus her myriad of titles of praise!

But are these references to a "translation" references to a "resurrection?"

The answer is in the very same chapter of Hebrews that you cite. [As one of my scriptural instructors used to say (paraphrased), 'if you want to understand scripture, read the next line.']

So in verse 35 it says that, "Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might gain a better resurrection."

So the author of Hebrews is not foreign to the word "resurrection," but he does not use it for Enoch and he does not use it for those dead who were "raised to life again" but presumably died again later!

This should tell us, indisputably, what the translation to life is not: it is not the resurrection.

Even Brian Daley, SJ in his work "On the Dormition" (SVS Press) is obligated, more or less, to concede this point:

"A first characteristic of this whole body of homilies is what might be called their 'cultivated vagueness' about the event being celebrated. as I have mentioned, it is clear that from the late sixth century until the tenth (when a certain sceptical reaction against belief in her bodily assumption emerged in certain ecclesiastical quarters, east and west), virtually all treatments of the end of Mary's life accept the belief that she died, was buried, and was raised from the tomb to heavenly glory within a few days of her burial. Nevertheless, it is striking that the authors of these homilees, like the broad ecclesiastical tradition since their time, consistently avoid the language of death and resurrection in speaking of Mary's end. Instead, we repeatedly encounter hallowed euphemisms: Mary's death is always referred to as a "falling asleep" (koimisis, dormitio), her passage into glory as a "transferral" (metathesis) or a "change of state" (metastasis), a "crossing over" (metavasis, diavasis) or a "change of dwelling" (metokisthi). John of Damascus boldly stresses that mary has been "lifted up" (irtai, metaoristai) (III 5 cf 1f), and Theoteknos of Livias repeatedly refers to her entry into glory as an "assumption" (analipsis) (5,9) - a word otherwise rare in Greek language for this feast, as we have mentioned. All of our fathers clearly believe that Mary's death was real. natural and complete; Andrew of Crete, for instance, refers to "the separation of her soul from her body, her putting-off of flesh, the end of her incarnate existence, the separation of her parts, their dissolution," and alludes to her entering the "foreign," "unknown regions" of the underworld, while Germanus even suggests - alone of these homilists - that her body had undergone some corruption in the tomb. Yet only Theoteknos, who stands near the beginning of the tradition of the feast, uses the strong metaphor of "assumption" to depict mary's entry into glory as a kind of heavenly journey. And none of these preachers speaks directly of Mary's final fulfillment, as one might have expected, as a "resurrection from the dead:" perhaps because of the inherent conservatism of liturgical tradition, going back to a time when consensus on the details of her end was less clear, or perhaps because it seemed more appropriate to reserve the term "resurrection" for what happened to Jesus, and for the eschatological hope of all Christians for the end of time. So our homilists, especially Andrew of Crete, repeatedly emphasize the mysterious, ineffable character of what Christians discern as Mary's end, and suggest that if the liturgy itself did not call for some attempt at explanation, it might be more reverent, as well as practicable, to "choose silence over words."


It always heartens my hopes for eventual reunion of east and west when a Jesuit speaks more closely to the tradition of the Church than many easterners! Thank you Fr. Daley, SJ!

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Dear Andrew,

I think Fr. Daley in this article is as vague as the Fathers he is accusing of vagueness in regards to the feast of the Dormition. There is nothing conclusive here. The information offered seems to me to be more supportive of the bodily assumption of St. Mary, than not.

I've been following this thread. Are you saying you believe St. Mary, the Mother of God, had her body rot in the earth? If so, I have to say that I've seen much evidence to the contrary, from Church Tradition. Can you give support from Church Tradition (East or West) which states such a thing like a belief that St. Mary's body remained and rotted in the earth? To me this sound very much against Church Tradition.

Now if you're arguing that one doesn't have to believe in her Assumption to be saved, I can stomach this a little easier. This to me is like saying that one does not have to believe that Chirst was actually circumcised on the eigth day in order for one to be saved. One might be very foolish to reject something so obvious, but would this be a rejection of the saving Gospel of Christ? I would guess not.

I would still question why someone would reject either one of these? You have presented some of your reasons. These, I have not found to be as persuasive as the universal attestation to belief in the bodily Assumption of the Asdvadzazdeen (Mother of God). Yet we must follow our conscience and be intellectually honest with ourselves and God. If I have understood you correctly, I respect your faith.

Note:
This has been just another edition of my insignificant opinion.

In Christ's Light,
Ghazar

Dear Brother Andrew,

This doesn't necessarily mean what you are saying. After all her tomb is still there and empty. Her (earthly) dwelling is in Gethsemane, yet her heavenly one is with the Lord. And as for the verses which speak to her body being seperated in the grave from her soul which was received by the Lord: This is precisely the Tradition, that our Lord received her soul (as is shown in the Icon of the Dormition -which Armenians use too) and then her body was raised on the third day. Therefore, these arguments aren't very persuasive to me. Thank you for considering these points.

In Christ's Light,
Ghazar