'THE FINAL MYSTERY':

THE DORMITION OF THE HOLY VIRGIN IN

ORTHODOX WORSHIP

by

KALLISTOS WAREBISHOP OF DIOKLEIA

It is hard to speak and not less hard to think about the mysteries that the Church keeps in the

hidden depths of her inner consciousness.

Vladimir Lossky (1903 - 58)

If I say that she is incomprehensible, how then may I speak about her? …

Silence, in wonder, overshadows narration

St Jacob of Serug (c.451 - 521)

A liturgical religion

'Christianity is a liturgical religion', states the Russian Orthodox theologian Archpriest

Georges Florovsky (1893 – 1979). 'The Church is first of all a worshipping community.

Worship comes first, doctrine and discipline second.'1 In the words of another Russian

Orthodox writer, the liturgist Archimandrite Cyprian Kern (1899 – 1960), 'The choir of the

Church is a choir of theology.'2 Both of them are reaffirming the well-known principle laid

down by St Prosper of Aquitaine in the middle of the fifth century : 'Let the rule of prayer

determine the rule of faith.'3

If this applies to all aspects of Christian theology, it is true more especially of the

Church's belief concerning the Bodily Assumption of the Virgin Mary. In the Christian East

the doctrine of the Assumption is celebrated rather than defined. More than other articles of

the faith, it is supremely liturgical in its formulation. When we Orthodox wish to speak about

the final glory of the Mother of God, we employ not so much the language of theological

analysis as that of praise and worship. This doxological approach was well expressed by the

Russian Exarch in Western Europe, Metropolitan Vladimir, when he was asked in 1950 by

members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in France what was the teaching of the Orthodox

Church about the Assumption. In reply he simply sent them the Orthodox liturgical texts

used on 15 August, and said that he had nothing to add to what was written there.4

What, then, do the Orthodox liturgical texts in fact have to say about this 'final

mystery' in the life of the Mother of God?5 As a point of departure, let us first consider the

various titles by which the Feast of 15 August is designated in Eastern Christendom. Most

commonly it is called the 'Dormition' or 'Falling Asleep' (Greek Koimisis; Slavonic Uspenie):

this is the name found in the service books, and normally employed by Orthodox Christians

in daily life. Taken in isolation, this title implies that Mary underwent physical death, that is

to say, the separation of her soul from her body; but it leaves open the question whether the

two were then reunited and she was assumed, body and soul together, into heaven.

Other titles applied to the Feast, however, one more explicit. It is sometimes termed

in Greek Metastasis, or else Metabasis or Metathesis, signifying 'passing over', 'migration' or

'translation'.6 Much less frequently – indeed only on rare occasions – it is called the Analipsis

of the Virgin, her 'Ascension' or 'Assumption'. A title that appeals to me, although I cannot

recall that it is officially utilized in the Orthodox Church, is 'The Glorification of the Mother

of God'.

The liturgical practice of the Orthodox Church leaves us in no doubt whatever about

the cardinal importance of the Virgin's Dormition. It is reckoned as one of the Twelve Great

4 See Kalistos Ware, 'The Orthodox Services and their Structure', in Mother Mary and

Archimandrite Kallistos Ware, The Festal Menaion (London : Faber & Faber, 1969), p. 65

(cited hereafter as FM).

Feasts in the annual calendar.7 Since the Byzantine ecclesiastical year commences on 1

September, the Dormition is thus, appropriately enough, the last major celebration in the

twelve-month cycle. In the words of Constantin Andronikoff (1916-97), 'If, by her

Annunciation, the Mother of God is at the beginning of the Christian history of humanity, she

also expresses its finality, by providing the human race with the example of glory lived out

beyond death.'8 What Prince Andronikoff means by 'finality' will become clearer as we

proceed.

The Feast of the Dormition is preceded by a single day of Forefeast (14 August), and

is followed by eight days of Afterfeast (16-23 August). Its importance is further emphasized

by the observance of a two-week fast (1-14 August) in preparation for the Feast. Around the

beginning of the fourteenth century, the Emperor Andronikos II (reigned 1282 – 1328) even

decreed that the entire month of August should be dedicated to the Dormition of the

Theotokos, with the 'dismissal' (apodosis) of the Feast taking place only on 31 August; but

subsequently the Greek Church reverted to 23 August as the date for the 'dismissal'.9

The August 'Fast of the Theotokos', as it is known, is one of the four major periods of

fasting in the Orthodox year (along with the pre-Paschal Fast of Lent, the pre-Christmas Fast,

and the Fast of the Apostles); and, next to Lent, it is the strictest in its observance, involving

what is in effect a vegan diet. Fish, wine and oil are allowed on the Feast of the

Transfiguration (6 August), and wine and oil are also permitted on Saturdays and Sundays;

but meat and animal products (milk, cheese, butter and eggs) are forbidden throughout the

fourteen days before the Feast.

The significance of the Feast of the Dormition is heightened still more by a striking

ceremony, celebrated on the evening of 15 August on the island of Patmos and elsewhere. A

solemn procession is held through the streets, carrying the epitaphios of the Mother of God.

This is most commonly a large, stiffened piece of cloth, with the figure of the dead Virgin

painted or embroidered upon it. She is shown laid out upon her funeral beir, with her eyes

closed and her arms folded across her breast. The procession halts three times, and during

each 'station' the clergy and choir sing lamentations or 'praises' (encomia) in her honour.10

This ceremony is closely similar to the epitaphios procession held on Friday evening in Holy

Week, when a representation of the dead Christ is carried around the exterior of the church or

through the streets; and the encomia in honour of the Virgin are in fact directly modelled

upon the encomia addressed to our Lord sung on Great Friday.11

The obvious parallel established here between the death of the Mother of God and that

of her Son has wider implications for the Orthodox understanding of the Assumption. Alike

in the Patristic homilies on the Dormition and in the liturgical texts, the correspondence

between Mother and Son is repeatedly underlined. Just as Christ died on the Cross and was

buried in a tomb, so Mary underwent a genuine death, albeit in her case not as the result of

exterior violence, and was then interned in a tomb. Just as Christ rose on the third day from

the dead and ascended into heaven, so Mary was raised up from the tomb and assumed into

heaven. As St John of Damascus (c.655 – c.750) puts it, 'There is nothing between Mother

and Son.'12

Origins

Before discussing in detail the liturgical texts, let us briefly consider the origins of the Feast

of the Dormition. It is obvious, first of all, that, in common with the Nativity of the

Theotokos (8 September) and the Entry of the Theotokos into the Temple (21 November),

this is a non-Biblical observance. Just as the New Testament says nothing at all about Mary's

birth and infancy, so likewise it makes no mention of her later years and her death.

So far as Scripture is concerned, Mary's last recorded words one to the servants at the

wedding feast in Cana: 'Do whatever he tells you' (John 2:5). With characteristic Kenosis,

the Holy Virgin on this occasion makes no reference to herself but speaks only of her Son.

Such, indeed, is always her distinctive role: as in the icon of the Hodigitria, she points

towards Jesus. Later in the New Testament, she is present at the Crucifixion and at

Pentecost, but she remains silent. She is to be found at the foot of the Cross – standing, be it

noted, and not kneeling – when Jesus commends her to the care of the Beloved Disciple:

'Here is your mother' (John 19:27). She is to be found also in the upper room at Jerusalem,

waiting with the apostles for the descent of the Holy Spirit: 'All these were constantly

devoting themselves to prayer, together with certain women, including Mary the Mother of

Jesus, as well as his brothers' (Acts 1:14).13 After that, nothing more is said about her in

Scripture: her later years are hidden from us.14

The Feast of the Dormition, then, like those of the Nativity and the Entry of the

Theotokos, rests upon tradition rather than Scripture. But, whereas in the case of the Nativity

and the Entry the tradition is based primarily on a text composed as early as the second

century, the Protevangelion or Book of James, in the case of the Dormition the most ancient

surviving texts are some three hundred years later in date. The first four Christian centuries,

it has been rightly asserted, are 'surprisingly reticent' on the subject of Mary's death,

maintaining what can only be described as 'a profound silence'.15 The first explicit reference

to the end of her earthly life is in the Panarion, an encyclopaedia of heresies written by St

Epiphanius of Salamas around the year 377. Here he expresses surprise that there is no

authorized account of her last days. In a tentative fashion he mentions the possibility that she

may not have died as other human beings do, but may somehow have remained immortal. He

concludes on an apophatic note: 'No one knows her end.'16

After Epiphanius, we have to wait for the best part of another century. The earliest

surviving narratives of the Virgin's Dormition and Assumption date from the second half of

the fifth century and the beginning of the sixth century. They are preserved in a variety of

languages, including Coptic, Ethiopian, Syriac, Georgian, Greek and Latin.17 These early

narratives can be classified into several 'families', which differ widely from one another, and

which seem to depend on distinct archetypes; Stephen Shoemaker speaks with good reason of

their 'polygenetic' character.18 If they do indeed derive ultimately from a single primitive

account, this is now lost and cannot be reconstituted. According to Shoemaker as regards one

group of narratives, those belonging to the 'Palm of the Tree of Life' family, it can be

tentatively argued that the surviving texts are based on traditions dating back to the third and

fourth century, and perhaps even to the second century.19

As regards the Virgin's situation after death, two different versions are given in these

early narratives. According to some of them, most notably in the 'Palm' group – represented

in Greek by the text edited by Antoine Wenger20 - at Mary's death Christ came and received

her soul, wrapping it in garments of dazzling whiteness and entrusting it to the Archangel

Michael. The apostles duly buried her body in Gethsemane. Christ then returned and raised

up her body from the tomb, handing it over to Michael. The archangel deposited the body in

Paradise at the foot of the tree of life; he then brought her soul and placed it once more in her

body.21

In this way, Mary underwent physical death – the separation of soul and body – but

afterwards the two were reunited, and in this way she was truly raised from the dead. It is not

actually said that she was then taken up, body and soul together, into heaven. But it is clear

that she experienced resurrection from the dead; the bodily resurrection, which the rest of

humankind will undergo only on the Last Day, is in her case already an accomplished fact.

In that sense, implicitly if not explicitly, the 'Palm' narratives affirm the Bodily Assumption.

In another group of narratives, however, know as the 'Bethlehem' traditions, the story

ends differently. In Greek this second group is represented by the text edited in the mid-

nineteenth century by Constantin Tischendorff.22 Here, as in the Greek 'Palm' narratives,

Christ takes Mary's soul, and the apostles bury her body in Gethsemane. Then, on the third

day, her body is raised up from the tomb and taken to Paradise.23 At this point, in most

versions the account comes to an end, and nothing is said about the reuniting of her body with

her soul. On the contrary, before her death she is told by Christ: 'Behold, from henceforth

your precious body will be translated to Paradise, but your hold soul will be in the heavens in

the treasures of my Father in surpassing brightness.'24

Here Paradise is evidently regarded as distinct from heaven. It is not the realm of

ultimate glory but a place of waiting, where the souls of the righteous dwell in expectant hope

until the final resurrection. In this place of waiting Mary's body is preserved incorrupt, but

until the Second Coming it remains separate whereas her soul is already in heaven, as yet her

body is not. Thus, in these Greek 'Bethlehem' narratives, although Mary's body is raised from

the tomb, she does not actually anticipate the general resurrection on the Last Day. She will

rise fully from the dead – in the sense that her body will be reunited with her soul – only at

the Panonisa, at the same time as this happens to the rest of humankind. The sole difference

between her and others is that the bodies of the rest of humankind dissolve in the grave,

whereas her body is kept, whole and free from corruption, in Paradise. The 'Bethlehem'

group of narratives, therefore, is 'assumptionless'; although her soul has ascended into

heaven, this has not yet happened to her body, and so she has not yet experienced resurrection

from the dead.

To this significant distinction between the accounts that presuppose a Bodily

Assumption and those that are 'assumptionless', we shall be returning shortly. For the time

being, let us return to the origins of the Feast. The liturgical observance of the Dormition on

15 August first emerges at approximately the same date as the earliest surviving narratives of

Mary's death. The Feast originates as we would expect, in the Holy City. The Jerusalem

Armenian Lectionary, a calendar reflecting the Liturgical practice of the Holy City around the

years 42-40, mentions a Feast of Mary Theotokos celebrated on 15 August, but it does not

state that this observance was specifically linked with her Falling Asleep.25 By the beginning

of the sixth century, however, the celebration on this date in Palestine had come to be

explicitly regarded as the Feast of Mary's Dormition.26 At the end of the same century, the

Emperor Maurice (reigned 582-602) gave official sanction to the observance of the

Dormition on 15 August, decreeing that it should be kept on this date throughout the

Empire.27 In the West the earliest evidence for the celebration of the Dormition on 15 August

is at Rome. The Feast was inserted into the Roman calendar by Pope Sergius I (687-701),

and from there it spread to Churches of the Gallican rite, becoming universally observed

throughout the West by the end of the eighth century.28

Associated with the liturgical commemoration of the Virgin's death, there developed

in Jerusalem a cult of the Virgin's tomb, which was located at the foot of the Mount of

Olives, not far from Gethsemane. Present-day pilgrims will readily recall the site, with its

tunnel-like entrance and the striking flight of steps leading down to the tomb. This cult is

first attested in texts from the late fifth century, more or less contemporary with the earliest

surviving narratives of the Dormition.29

The tomb has always been empty. To the best of my knowledge, no Christian group

claims, or has ever claimed, to possess the body of the Virgin Mary, or any part of her body

such as her head, hand or foot. By contrast, there are numerous relics believed to be from the

body of her mother St Anne, or from that of St John the Baptist. There are certainly

secondary relics from the Virgin, such as portions of her clothing;30 but from her actual body

there is nothing at all. The absence of bodily relics is often invoked as evidence in support of

the Bodily Assumption: but, like most arguments from silence, it is by itself inconclusive.31

Did Mary die?

In view of the startling lack of evidence from the first four centuries, it is understandable that

the Apostolic Constitution defining the dogma of the Bodily Assumption, Munificentissimus

Deus, issued by Pope Pius Xii on 1 November 1950, chooses to rely on theological rather

than historical arguments. In particular, it affirms a direct connection between the Virgin's

absolute purity, by virtue of her Immaculate Conception, and her Bodily Assumption: 'She,

by all entirely unique privilege, completely overcame sin by her Immaculate Conception, and

as a result she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, and she

did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body.'32

Concerning the actual circumstances of the Assumption, Munificentissimus Deus

remains deliberately imprecise. The decree even leaves open the question whether Mary

underwent physical death; it merely states that she was assumed into heaven 'on the

completion of the course of her earthly life' (expleto terrestris vitae cursu).33 Certain Roman

Catholic Mariologists, such as Fr Martin Jugie, have in fact argued strongly in favour of the

'immortalist' view, maintaining that Mary never experienced death but was taken-up alive

into heaven, like Enoch (Generaldirektion Wettbewerb. 5:24; cf. Heb. 11:5) and Elijah (2 Kgs

2:11) in the Old Covenant. But this, so I understand, is not the usual Roman Catholic

opinion.

What, then, is the standpoint of the Orthodox liturgical books in this matter?

Notwithstanding the hesitant speculations of Epiphanios, later from the Christian East

exclude the 'immortalist' option, stating unambiguously that the Virgin Mary, like her Son,

underwent a genuine bodily death. This is evident, for example, from the Synaxarion

appointed to be read at Matins (Orthros) on 15 August. This is included in the service books

after Canticle Six of the Canon, and may be regarded as the standard account of Mary's last

days on earth, as generally accepted in the Orthodox Church during the past ten centuries.34

According to the Synaxarion, the death of the Virgin took place at Jerusalem; there is

no suggestion that it might have happened at Ephesus.35 Three days in advance she was

warned of her coming death by an angel,36 who gave her a palm branch. After receiving this

message, Mary ascended to the Mount of Olives to pray; as she passed by, the trees bowed

down to her. Returning home, she called together her kinsfolk and neighbours, and told them

the news; and she made ready her funeral bier and everything else needed for her burial.

Following a sudden clap of thunder, the apostles arrived from the ends of the earth, borne

miraculously on clouds. Also with them were the hierarchs Dionysios the Areopagite,

Hierotheos and Timothy.37

The Theotokos prepared for her death with joy, and told the apostles to refrain from

all lamentation. Her decease was not preceded by any illness. She simply lay down on the

bier that she had set in order. In full possession of her faculties, she offered prayers for the

whole world. Then she blessed the assembled apostles and hierarchs, and commended her

soul into the hands of her Son.

Taking up the bier, the apostles carried it to Gethsemane, where there was a tomb

made ready for her. Certain Jews sought to obstruct the procession, and one of them even

attempted to overturn the bier. His hands were cut off with a sword by an angel, but he was

subsequently healed.38 Mary's body was placed in the tomb, and for three days the apostles

remained in Gethsemane, keeping watch in front of it. One of the apostles, who had been

delayed, arrived only on the third day.39 To enable him to bid the Theotokos a last farewell,

the tomb was opened. To the astonishment of everyone, it was found to be empty; all that it

contained was Mary's burial shroud or robe (Sindon).

So the story in the Synaxarion concludes. The question immediately arises: How

literally is it to be taken? Are we Orthodox obliged to accept it exactly in all its details?

Surely not. Even though it is indeed the case that the law of prayer is the law of faith, it does

not follow that everything recounted in the Service books is to be accepted word for word,

strictly according to the letter. A distinction has to be made between symbolism and poetical

imagery, on the one hand, and statements of historical fact, on the other; between incidental

details of the story, which need not be interpreted à la letter, and primary affirmations,

without which the story would lose its point.

In the present instance, it is surely unnecessary to insist on such features as the

bowing of the trees to the earth or the cutting-off of the Jew's hands. The theological

meaning of the story does not lie here. There are, however, at least three points that play an

essential role in the narrative. They can be summed-up in the form of questions. Did the

Virgin die? Was her tomb subsequently opened and found to be empty? Was she assumed

into heaven in both soul and body?

As regards the first two questions, the Synaxarion provides clear answers. Yes, the

Virgin did indeed undergo bodily death. Yes, her tomb was opened on the third day and

found to be empty. So far as the third question is concerned, however, the Synaxarion is

strangely ambivalent. It gives no indication whatever as to the situation of Mary's body after

it was raised from the tomb. It does not say, as in the 'Palm' traditions, that her body was

reunited with her soul, and in this way resurrected; nor does it say, as in the 'Bethlehem'

traditions, that her body was left in Paradise, and there preserved until the Last Day, separate

from her soul. So far as the Synaxarion is concerned, the choice between these two versions

is left entirely open.

John of Thessalonica, writing in the early seventh century, is slightly more definite

about the Virgin's end: 'She had been taken away by Christ, the God who became flesh from

her, to the place of her eternal, living inheritance.'40 This could be taken to mean that she was

assumed, body and soul together, into heaven; but this is not clearly stated. The Typikon of

the Great Church, edited by Dmitrievskii, is even less precise concerning the destiny of her

body: 'Christ translated it, in a way that he alone understands.'41 The Menologion of Basil II

speaks in similarly nebulous terms: 'God translated it to a place that he himself knows.'42

It is clear that many of the early writers prefer to be deliberately indefinite concerning

the final glory of the Mother of God. Many display what Daley calls a 'cultivated

vagueness'.43 This attitude of apophatic reticence is evident, for example, in St Andrew of

Crete (c.66-740), when he says that it is more reverent to 'choose silence over words'.44

Indeed, for a long period, extending up to the fifteenth century, 'assumptionless' and

the 'assumptionist' standpoints continued to coexist side by side in the Christian East.45 Thus,

on the one side, in the homily attributed to Modestos of Jerusalem (dating in fact from the

late seventh century), it is said that Mary was placed 'in Paradise, in the tent of an immortal

body', which seems to imply the 'assumptionless' position. But the homilist is reluctant to

commit himself, stating that after her burial she experienced 'holy things, beyond our

comprehension …. [Christ] raised her from the grave and took her to himself, in a way

known only to him.'46 The opinion that Mary's body remained in Paradise until the Parousia

is upheld by, among others, the Emperor Leo the Wise and John Geometres in the tenth

century, and by Joseph Bryennios in the fifteenth.

On the other hand, the 'assumptionist' viewpoint is upheld by an impressive series of

writers, and can claim considerably stronger support than the alternative 'Paradise' theory.

Theoteknos of Livias, for example, speaks of Mary's 'assumption' (analimpsis),47 and claims

that her body was 'confided for a short time to the earth, and then … was taken up in glory to

heaven along with her soul'.48 St Germanos of Constantinople (c.640 – c.733) and St John of

Damascus also affirm the Bodily Assumption, as is done in the later Byzantine period

(fourteenth-fifteen century) by St Gregory Palamas, St Nicolas Cabasilas and St Mark of

Ephesus.

From the sixteenth century onwards, it appears that no Orthodox theologian has

upheld the separate preservation of Mary's body in Paradise until the Second Coming. St

Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain (c.1749-1809) may be taken as summing up the modern

Orthodox consensus when he writes, carefully correcting what he sees as the omissions at the

end of the Synaxarion in the service books:

We note here that our Lady the Theotokos, after her three-day sleep in the tomb, was

not only translated but also resurrected from the tomb, and was assumed into the

heavens; that is to say, her all-radiant soul was united again with her body that had

received God, and in this state she arose from tomb. And after her resurrection she

was immediately assumed with her body into the heavens, or rather, above the

heavens.49

How far does the hymnography of the Feast provide firm and clear support for this statement

by St Nikodimos?

Theology in line and colour

Before turning to the liturgical texts, let us first look briefly at the iconography of the Feast;

for in the Church's worship the spoken word and the visual image are intimately linked, each

confirming the other. Indeed, Orthodox worshippers, arriving in church on 15 August, before

ever they have listened to any of the appointed hymns, will first of all be brought face to face

with a pictorial representation – the icon of the Feast, which is placed in the centre of the

church or close to the entrance at the west end. It is this festal icon that initially establishes in

their minds the spiritual meaning of the celebration. What, then, do they see on first setting

foot within the place of worship?

The Feast of the Dormition, as we have seen, commemorates two events, connected

but distinct: first, the death and burial of the Mother of God; second, her resurrection and

ascension. The earliest icons of the Feast,50 dating from the tenth century onwards, depict

only the first of these two events, showing the death of the Virgin but not her Assumption.

Her body is represented lying upon the bier, with her eyes closed, and with the apostles and

hierarchs standing round her. Behind the bier stands Christ, holding what appears to be a

baby clothed in white; this is the soul of the Virgin, which she has at this very instant

commended into the hands of her Son. Thus the icon sets before us the moment of the

separation of the Virgin's soul from her body, but it gives no indication of what may have

happened subsequently. Comparing this Dormition icon with the standard icon of the Virgin

and Child, we note what Jaroslav Pelikan terms 'a striking reversal of roles': in the icon of the

Virgin and Child, it is Mary who holds Christ, but in the Dormition icon it is the Son who

holds the Mother in his arms.51

From around the fourteenth century onwards, however, more especially in Serbia and

Russia, icons are found that represent not only the Virgin's death but her Assumption. As

before, the apostles surround the bier on which her body lies, and Christ stands behind it,

holding her soul. Then, at the top of the icon, the opened gates of heaven are depicted; and,

slightly below, there is a mandorla upborne by angels, within which is shown the figure of the

Virgin, full length and robed, on the point of passing through the celestial portals. It is clear

that this depicts not her soul only but her total person, body and soul together.

'Assumptionist' icons of this kind remain the exception rather than the norm, and may be due

to western influence; but they have an accepted place within the Orthodox iconographic

canon.

The older type of Dormition icon, then, displays an apophatic reserve, similar to that

found in many Patristic homilies, while the later type expresses a greater cataphatic boldness.

In that case, what is the standpoint of the liturgical texts?

Scripture readings

Little can be inferred from the Scripture readings appointed for the Feast of the Dormition.

The three Old Testament lessons at Great Vespers are identical with those prescribed for the

Birth of the Mother of God (8 September) and for the Annunciation (25 March):

(1) Genesis 28 : 10-17 (Jacob's ladder): the Mother of God unites heaven and earth.

While applied more commonly to her Birthgiving, this image of the ladder stretching up to

heaven is also an appropriate symbol of her Assumption.

(2) Ezekiel 43 : 27 – 44 : 4 (the closed gate through which none but the prince of

Israel may pass): this is an obvious symbol for the Virgin Birth, but has no direct connection

with the Dormition.

(3) Proverbs 9 : 1-11 ('Wisdom has built her house'): this again refers to the

Incarnation rather than the Assumption. The house that Christ the Wisdom of God (1 Cor.

1:24) has built for himself is the human nature that he has taken from the Virgin, dwelling

within her womb.

The New Testament readings for the Feast of the Dormition are once more the same

as those assigned for 8 September and (in part) for 25 March:

(1) Matins Gospel : Luke 1 : 39-49, 56 (the visitation of Elizabeth by Mary).

(2) Epistle at the Liturgy: Philippians 2 : 5-11 (the Kenosis and exaltation of Christ).

(3) Gospel at the Liturgy: Luke 10 : 32-42; 11 : 27-28 (Martha and Mary; Christ's

answer to the woman in the crowd, 'Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and

obey it').52

In the absence of Biblical descriptions of the death of the Theotokos, it is only to be

expected that the Scripture readings for the Feast should refer mainly to the Incarnation. In

the case of the Epistle at the Liturgy, however, Mary's translation into heaven can of course

be seen as parallel to, and indeed the consequence of, the exaltation of her Son (Phil. 2:9).

More generally, since Mary's glorification is the extension and fulfilment of her divine

motherhood, texts referring to Christ's birth have also a fitting place on 15 August.

Elsewhere in the services for 15 August, frequent use is made of the psalm verse

'Arise, O Lord, into they rest: thou and the Ark of thy holiness' (Ps. 131[132] : 8).53 As the

word 'Ark' is often used as a title for Virgin Mary, it is natural to see here a reference to her

Bodily Assumption. Two other psalm verses are also employed on 15 August. The first of

these, 'You will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One experience corruption'

(Ps. 15[16] : 10), applied by the Apostolic Church to Christ (Acts 2:27; 13:35), is taken by

the hymnographers as referring also to Mary: Christ has preserved her body 'incorrupt in the

tomb'.54 The second text speaks of the gates of heaven being 'lifted up', so that 'the King of

glory may come in' (Ps. 23[24]: 7-10); once more, it is easy to transfer these words from

Christ to his Mother, and to take this as a reference to the Assumption.55

1 'The Elements of Liturgy: An Orthodox View', in Georges Florovsky, The Collected Works,

vol. 13 (Vaduz : Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1989), p. 86.2 Quoted in Constantin Andronikoff, Le sens des fêtes, vol. 1. Le cycle fixe (Paris : Cerf,

1970), p. 7. 3 On the grace of God and free will 8 (PL 51 : 209C): … ut legem credendi lex statuat

supplicandi; often cited as Lex orandi lex credendi, 'The rule of prayer is the rule of faith.?5 For the phrase 'final mystery', applied to the Dormition of the Theotokas, see 15 August,

Great Vespers, Lity 1 (FM, p. 508). The full text of the Orthodox services for the actual

Feastday of the Dormition (15 August) can be found in FM, pp. 504-29 (translated from the

original Greek). For another translation, made from the Slavonic, see Isaac E. Lambertsen,

The Menaion of the Orthodox Church, vol. 11 (in reality, vol. 12) (Liberty, TN: St. John of

Kronstadt Press, 1997), pp. 168-78. Lambertsen also gives the texts for the Forefeast and the

Afterfeast; these are not included in FM. So far as 15 August is concerned, there are no

significant variations between the Greek and the Slavonic service books, except at Small

Vespers; but in the texts for the Forefeast and the Afterfeast, there are numerous differences

between the two.

I have not detected any allusion in the hymnography to Revelation 12:1; but this is

unsurprising, since (as we have seen) the Christian East does not usually apply this text to

Mary.

Apophatic Reserve

6 The term 'Translation' (Metastasis) is also applied in the Orthodox service books to the

death of St John the Theologian (commemorated on 26 September). This reflects the legend

that the body of John, like that of the Virgin, was assumed into heaven: on this, see Martin

Jugie, La Mort et l'Assumption de la Sainte Vierge : Étude historico-doctrinale, Studi e Testi

114 (Rome: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1944), pp. 710-26. In current editions of the

Greek service books, the notion that John was assumed bodily into heaven is explicitly

rejected as a misinterpretation of John 21 : 22 : see Menaion tou Septemvriou (Athens :

Apostoliki Diakonia, 1959), p. 165; Menaion tou Septemvriou (Athens : Phos, 1961), pp. 283,

300-1. 7 The Twelve Great Feasts are listed in FM, pp. 41-42. 8 Le sens des fêtes, vol. 1, p. 276. 9 See Jugie, La Mort et l'Assumption, pp. 340-42. 10 The encomia for the Virgin are not included in the Menaion or in any of the other main service

books, but they are to be found in special booklets. I have in my possession two such booklets. The

texts that they contain seem to be quite independent of each other:

(1) Akolouthia Tera eis tin Metastasin tis Yperagias Despoinis imon Theotokou kai

Aeiparthenou Marias, ek pollon eranistheisa (Venice: Frangiskos Andreolas, 1836).

(2) Enkomia Neophani, itoi Akolonthia Panieros Eis tin pansevaston te Kai panagian

metastasin tis yperevlogimenis kai panendoxou Despoinis imon Theotokou kai aeiparthenou Marias,

2nd edn (Patras : E.P. Christodonlos, 1871).

Neither of those booklets provides any indication of authorship; I suspect that both texts are

relatively modern in date. There may well be other Greek versions of the encomia to the Virgin, and

certainly there are also versions in Slavonic. 11 For the enkomia used on the evening of Great Friday, see Mother Mary and Archimandrite Kallistos

Ware, The Lenten Triodion (London/Boston : Faber & Faber, 1978), pp. 623-44. These actually form

part of Matins for Holy Saturday, which in most places is celebrated by anticipation on Friday

evening.

It is time to consider in detail the hymnography of the feast.56 The date of particular texts is

often hard to establish. The two Canons for the Feast, both containing important doctrinal

statements, are ascribed, perhaps correctly, to writers of the eighth century: the first Canon to

St Kosmas of Mainman (c.675 – c.751), and the second to his close contemporary St John of

Damascus. Other material is attributed to St Theophanes Graptos (died 845). Numerous

12 Homilies on the Dormition 3:5; English translation in Brian E. Daley, On the Dormition of the

Virgin Mary: Early Patristic Homilies (St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1998), p. 238. On John of

Damascus, see Kallistos Ware, 'The Earthly Heaven": The Mother of God in the Teaching of St John

of Damascus', in William M. McLoughlin and Jill Pinnock (ed.), Mary for Earth and Heaven

(Leominster: Gracewing, 2002), pp. 355-68, especially pp. 363-4. 13 It is surprising that in icons of Pentecost Mary is usually absent (although she is always depicted in

icons of the Ascension). She does appear, however, in what is the earliest of all surviving

representations of the descent of the Holy Spirit, the Syrian Rabbula Gospels (586). 14 According to the normal exegesis in the Christian East, the 'woman clothed with the sun, with the

moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars' (Rev. 12:1), is understood as a figure of

the Church, not of the Virgin Mary. Only a few Greek Fathers, such as (somewhat hesitantly)

Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 315-403), and (somewhat more confidently) Oecumenius of Tricca (6th

century), suggest that this passage may refer directly to Mary. Since, however, the Holy Virgin is

often seen as a figure of the Church, in an indirect way Rev. 12:1 may legitimately be interpreted in

Marian terms. Yet, taken in isolation, it hardly constitutes historical evidence for the Bodily

Assumption. 15 Stephen J. Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary's Dormition and Assumption (Oxford:

University Press, 2002), pp.1,10. This work provides a thorough and up-to-date survey of the subject.

Among earlier studies, the monumental monograph of Martin Jugie, La Mort et l'Assumption (see not

6), still remains fundamental. Consult also Antoine Wenger, L'Assumption de la T.S. Vierge dans la

tradition byzantine du VIe au Xe siècle: Études et Documents, Archives de l'Orient chrétien 5 (Paris:

Institut Française d'études byzantines, 1955); Michel van Esbroeck, Aux origines de la Dormition de

la Vierge: Études historiques sur les traditions orientales (Brookfield, VT: Variorum, 1995); Simon

C. Mimouni, Dormition et assomption de Marie: Histoire des traditions anciennes, Théologie

historique 98 (Paris: Beauchesne, 1995). For the main references in the Greek and Latin Fathers,

consult the indices (s.v. 'Assumption') in Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, vol.

1 (London/New York: Sheed & Ward, 1963), and in Luig: Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the

Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1999).16 Panarion (Against the Heresies) 78:23:9; cited in Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions, p.14.

texts are anonymous and are therefore difficult to date; many may be from the eighth or ninth

century, but individual items may be somewhat later. For our present purpose, however, the

antiquity or otherwise of the texts is of secondary significance. What matters is that they

have been included in the service books and form part of the Church's liturgical tradition.

17 For English translations of these texts, see M.R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford :

Clarendon Press, 1924), pp. 194-227; Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions, pp. 290-414. 18 Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions, p. 143. 19 Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions, pp. 76-77, 285. 20 Wenger, L'Assumption, pp. 210-41; tr. Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions, 351-69. To avoid

unnecessary detail, I limit myself here to the earliest Greek narratives in the 'Palm' and 'Bethlehem'

traditions; for a full discussion, see Shoemaker, op. cit., pp. 57-76. 21 Wenger, §§ 35, 45, 47-48. 22 C. Tischendorff, Apocalypses Apocryphae (Leipzig: H. Mendelssohn, 1866), pp. 95-112; tr. James,

pp. 201-9. 23 Tischendorff, §§ 44, 48-50. 24 Tischendorff, § 39. 25 Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions, p. 82. 26 Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions, p. 116. 27 Nikiphoros Kallistos, Ecclesiastical History 1 : 17 : 28 (PG 147 : 292 AB).28 Jugie, La Mort et l'Assumption, pp. 195-202. 29 Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions, pp. 98-107. 30 On secondary relics of the Virgin, see Jugie, La Mort et l'Assumption, pp. 688-99. On 2 July, for

example, the Orthodox Church commemorates the Placing of the Honourable Robe of the Most Holy

Theotokos in the Church of Blackernae, and on 31 August it commemorates the Placing of the

Cincture or Sash (zoni) of the Virgin in the Church of Chalkoprateia. These are both

Constantinopolitan feasts. 31 Jugie, La Mort et l'Assumption, p. 688, goes so far as to dismiss this argument from the absence of

relics as 'very feeble', pointing out that there are many early Christian saints, including several

apostles, of whom there are no surviving primary relics. On the other hand, Alexis Kniazeff, La Mère

de Dieu dans l'Église Orthodox (Paris: Cerf, 1990), pp. 143-4, calls the absence of bodily relics 'a

weighty argument', observing (somewhat enigmatically): 'One can even speak of this as a dogmatic

fact.' 32 Cited in Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions, p. 9.

As regards the three questions that we formulated earlier in connection with the

Synaxarion, the liturgical texts give clear answers to the first two. They plainly confirm that

the Holy Virgin underwent a genuine physical death, and that after her burial her tomb was

found to be empty. But in response to the third question, the Bodily Assumption, their

testimony is less straightforward. The great majority of the hymns are ambiguous, stating

33 N. Danziner and A. Schön-metzer, Encheiridion Symbolorum, 36th edn (Freiburg im Breisgau:

Herder, 1976), p. 782. 34 See Manaion tou Argoustou (Athens: Phos, 1961), pp. 153-4; Menaion tou Argoustou (Athens:

Apostoliki Diakonia, 1962), pp. 86-87. This reproduces almost exactly the notice to be found in the

tenth-century Synaxarion of the Church of Constaninople : see Hippolyte Delehaye, Propylaeum ad

Acta Sanctorum Novembris. Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae e Codice Sirmondiano

(Brussels : Bollandists, 1902), pp. 891-4. The Constantinople Synaxarion depends, in all probability

on the early 7th-century account of Mary's death given in the Homily on the Dormition by John,

Archbishop of Thessalonica (tr. Daley, On the Dormition of Mary, pp. 47-67; and it is largely similar

to the Greek 'Palm' narrative edited by Wenger (see note 20).

See also the entries for 15 August in the Constantinople Typikon preserved in Ms Patmos 266

(9th-10th century), ed. Aleksei Dmitrievskii, Opisanie Liturgichiskikh Rukopisei, vol. 1 (Kiev :

Korchak-Novitskii, 1895), pp. 104-5; and in the Menologion of Basil II (also 10th century) (PG 117 :

585B). Both of these differ significantly in their ending from the Synaxarion edited by Delehaye; the

entry in the Menologion of Basil II is very brief. 35 On the tradition that the Virgin died at Ephesus, not Jerusalem, see Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions,

pp. 74-76. The arguments in favour of Ephesus as the place of her death, he says, 'are no longer taken

seriously', and the evidence in support of this view is late and 'meagre'. 36 Sometimes identified as Gabriel: see Nokodimos of the Holy Mountain, Synaxaristis ton Dodeka

Minon tou Eniartou, vol. 2 (Athens, 1868), p. 318. 37 For their presence at the Virgin's death, see Dionysios the Areopagite, On the Divine Names 3:2 (ed.

B.R. Suchla, Corpus Dionysiacum, vol. 1, Patristische Texte und Studien 33 [Berlin/New York:

Walter de Gruyter, 1990], p. 141); discussed in Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions, pp. 29-30. The

Dionysian writings are usually dated c.500. 38 The Jew's name is not mentioned in the Synaxarion; elsewhere it is given as Jephonias or Jechonias.

A regrettable feature in most of the early Dormition narratives is their strong hostility towards the

Jews, but fortunately in the Synaxarion, apart from the present incident, this anti-Jewish feeling is not

in evidence. It should be noted that John of Damascus, when recording the cutting-off of the Jew's

hands, is careful to distance himself from the story; without himself endorsing it, he merely calls it 'an

merely that Mary has commended her soul or spirit to Christ, or that she has 'passed over into

life', without specifying exactly what has happened to her body. A few texts suggest that her

body has been preserved incorrupt in Paradise. A somewhat larger group of texts – but still

no more than a small portion of the total material for the Feast – asserts, with varying degrees

of directness, that her body has been assumed into the glory of heaven.

account that circulates on the lips of many' (Homilies on the Dormition 2:13); tr. Daley, p. 217).

Icons of the Dormition frequently, but not invariably, depict this incident. 39 In some early accounts, the apostle is named as Thomas. The story of the late arrival of the apostle

and the opening of the tomb is not to be found in the 'Palm' narrative edited by Wenger, but it occurs

in the excerpt from the Euthymiac History (? mid 6th century), inserted into John of Damascus,

Homilies on the Dormition 2:18 (tr. Daley, pp. 224-6). 40 The Dormition of our Lady 14 (tr. Daley, p. 67). 41 ed. Dmitrievskii, p. 105. 42 PG 117 : 585B. 43 On the Dormition of Mary, p. 27. 44 On the Dormition of Mary 1 : 1 (tr. Daley, p. 103). In fact, Andrew later makes clear that he accepts

the Bodily Assumption. 45 For detailed evidence, see Jugie, La Mort et l'Assumption, pp.214-86, 315-53. 46 On the Dormition 10, 14 (tr. Daley, pp. 97, 100). 47 On the Assumption 9 [31]; cf. 5 (tr. Daley, pp.78, 74). 48 On the Assumption 3 [9] (tr. Daley, p.73). 49 Synaxaristis, vol. 2, p. 320, note 1. 50 On the iconography of the Dormition, see Vladimir Lossky, in Leonid Ouspensky and Vladimir

Lossky, The Meaning of Icons (Olten: Urs Graf-Verlag, 1952), pp. 215-16; revised edn (Crestwood,

NY: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1982), pp. 213-14. Cf. John Buggley, Festival Icons for the

Christian Year (London: Mowbray, 2000), pp. 160-66.51 Mary through the Centuries: Her Place in the History of Culture (New Haven/London: Yale

University Press, 1996), p. 207. 52 On the choice (at first sight somewhat surprising) of this Lukan periscope for Marian Feasts, see the

comment of Archimandrite Lev Gillet (1893 – 1980): 'Yea, blessed is Mary, but not principally

because she, in her flesh, gave birth to our Lord. She is most blessed because she, in her flesh, gave

birth to our Lord. She is most blessed because she has been, to a unique degree, obedient and faithful'

('The Veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God', in E.L. Mascall [ed.], The Mother of

God: A Symposium by Members of the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergins [Westminster: Dacre

In general, the hymnography is marked by the apophatic reserve, the 'cultivated

vagueness', to which we have already drawn attention. This reserve is evident, first of all, in

the three hymns which occur most frequently throughout the whole period of the Feast, and

which are therefore thoroughly familiar to all Orthodox worshippers: the Apolytikion or

Tropanion of the Feast, the Kontakion, and the Exapostilarion.57 Thus the last of these states:

O apostles, assembled her from the ends of the earth,

Bury my body in Gethsemane,

And thou, O my Son and God, receive my spirit.58

This refers solely to Mary's death and burial, forming a precise verbal counterpart to what is

represented visually in icons of the Feast (apart from those that show the Virgin ascending to

heaven in a mandorla.

The Apolytikion is slightly more explicit:

In giving birth, O Theotokos, thou hast retained thy virginity,

And in falling asleep thou hast not forsaken the world.

Thou who art the Mother of Life hast passed over into life,

And by thy prayers thou dost deliver our Souls from death.59

Press, ?1949 ??, p.77).53 FM, pp. 504, 505, 509, 510, 513, 522, 528. 54 15 August, Matins, Canon 1, Canticle 6: 2 (FM, p. 519). Compare 17 August, Vespers, Aposticha 3

(Greek); 18 August, Matins, Aposticha 3 (Slav) (tr. Lambertsen, Menaion of the Orthodox Church,

vol. 11, p. 221) : 'Thy body remained inaccessible to corruption; and, though it was given over for

burial according to the law of nature, it remained incorrupt.' Note also the striking words on 18

August, Sessional Hymn 2 after Canticle 3 of the Canon (tr. Lambertsen, p. 217): 'O thou who hast

conceived God without seed and given birth to him in the flesh without corruption, thou art clothed in

the new raiment of incorruption; for as Mother of Life and Queen of all, thou hast passed over, O

Virgin, into immaterial life.'55 See below, p. 000.56 See Jugie, La Mort et L'Assumption, pp. 188-93. 57 For an explanation of these terms, see FM, pp. 545, 551-2, 554. 58 FM, p. 525. I have sometimes modified the translation in FM.

Here the emphasis is upon Mary's unbroken closeness to the world by virtue of her

intercession. Her death is an apparent withdrawal that is in reality no severance at all. This

insistence upon the Virgin's continuing involvement in our lives through her ceaseless prayer

is a master-theme throughout the festal hymnography. As for the phrase ' …hast passed over

into life', this may easily be understood as an oblique allusion to the Bodily Assumption; but

it does not exclude the possibility that her soul alone has ascended into heaven.

Somewhat firmer support for the doctrine of the Assumption is provided by the

Kontakionn:

Neither the tomb nor death held fast the Theotokos,

Who is ever watchful in her prayers,

And in whose intercession lies unfailing hope.

For as the Mother of Life

She has been transported into life

By him who dwelt within her ever-virgin womb.60

Here, as before, the main stress is upon the constant intercession of the Mother of God. At

the same time, the statement that she was not 'held fast' by the tomb definitely implies that the

tomb was found to be empty. Yet the Kontakion does not say explicitly that her body was

assumed into heaven.

In general, looking beyond these three hymns to the liturgical texts as a whole, it is

definitely understood that Mary experienced physical death. 'Thou hast undergone an exodus

that was conformable to nature', says St John of Damascus.61 The Virgin's body was

'embalmed as a corpse',62 and she descended to the subterranean regions. In the words once

more of John, 'A strange wonder it was to see the living Heaven of the King of all descend

into the hallows of the earth.'63 In this connection, the liturgical texts underline the familiar

60 FM, p.520.

parallel between Mother and Son. Mary's end corresponds to that of Christ. As John insists,

since Jesus underwent death, it was appropriate that his Mother should do so likewise:

If her Fruit, whom none may comprehend,

On whose account she was called Heaven,

Submitted of his own will to burial as a mortal,

How should she, his Virgin Mother, refuse it?64

What happened, then, after this genuine death that Mary suffered? The majority of

texts merely state, as does the Exapostilarion, that she commended her soul or spirit into the

hands of her Son, but they say nothing about the resurrection of her body:

The spotless Bride ….

Today delivers her undefiled soul

To her Creator and her God.65

# # #

She who is higher than the heavens,

More glorious than the seraphim,

She who is held in greater honour than all creation,

She who by reason of her surpassing purity

Became the receiver of the everlasting Essence,

Today commends her all-holy soul into the hands of her Son.66

As John of Damascus affirms:

He who, taking flesh, O Theotokos,

Strangely made his dwelling in thine undefiled womb,

Himself received thine all-holy spirit,

And, as a Son paying his due,

65 15 August, Great Vespers, Lity 3 (FM, pp.508-9). 66 15 August, Small Vespers, Lord, I have cried 4; Great Vespers, Lity 2 (FM, pp. 505, 508).

He gave it rest with himself.67

# #??

Kosmas speaks in similar terms:

The angelic powers were amazed

As they looked in Zion upon their own Master,

Bearing in his hands the soul of a woman.68

It is noteworthy that the hymns for the Feast do not simply say that Mary 'died', but that she

'commended her soul' or 'delivered her spirit' into the hands of Christ. Her departure from

this earthly life, so it is implied, was not simply the result of external necessity but was

voluntarily accepted by the Virgin. Her death was not passive but active. The language used

of Mary deliberately recalls what is said of Christ's death: he 'gave up' or 'handed over' his

spirit (Matt. 27 : 50; John 19 : 30).69

Alongside these texts that speak of Mary entrusting her soul into the hands of her Son,

there are many other passages that refer – in terms similar to the Apolytikion and Kontakion

of the Feast – to her passing over through death into fuller life. For the most part, however,

they refrain from stating specifically that her body participates in this new life. So Kosmas

writes:

Thy death, pure Virgin, was a crossing

Into a better and eternal life.

It translated thee, O undefiled from mortal life.

To that which knows no end and is indeed divine:

And so thou dost look with joy

Upon thy Son and Lord.70

Comparable language is used by John:

70 15 August, Matins, Canon 1, Canticle 4 : 3 (FM, p.517).

Having become the Temple of the Life,

Thou has obtained life eternal:

For thou who hast borne the Life in Person

Hast now passed over through death into life.71

In an anonymous sticheron, it is said:

By thy holy Dormition,

O Virgin Mother and Bride of God,

Thou who gavest birth to the Life

Hast been transported into immortal Life,

Attended by angels, principatines and powers,

By apostles, prophets and the whole creation,

And thy Son received into his immaculate hands thy spotless soul. 72

It is unthinkable, insists John, that she who is the 'living Heaven' should not dwell in

heavenly life with her own Son:

The heavenly mansions of God fittingly received thee,

O most holy, as a living Heaven,

And, joyously adorned as a Bride without spot

Thou standest beside the King our God.73

In these and similar hymns, there is a clear underlying argument. As John expresses it, by

virtue of the Incarnation Mary's body is 'the source of life' (Zoarchikos).74 It was not fitting,

therefore, that after her death she should be excluded from life, but she has passed over

through death into a life that is incomparably more abundant. Such an argument could easily

be extended to include her bodily resurrection: since it was her body that bore Christ our Life,

it is right that this same body, along with her soul, should be received into heaven. Yet in the

72 15 August, Matins, Lands 3 (FM, p.525). 73 15 August, Matins, Canon 2, Canticle 1 : 3 (FM, p.515).

texts so far cited, while none of them in any way excludes the doctrine of the Bodily

Assumption, equally none of them straightforwardly and unambiguously endorses such a

doctrine. Those who already believe in the Bodily Assumption find it easy to read into such

texts a confirmation of their belief; but the texts themselves say nothing about Mary's body.

A term regularly used to describe Mary's passage into fuller life is metastasis,

'translation'. 'Thou wast shown forth at the Throne of the Most High,' it is said, 'and today

thou art translated from earth to heaven.'75 'By thy deathless Dormition' – surely, a

memorable phrase! – 'thou hast sanctified the whole world, and then hast been translated to

the regions above the world.'76 In the words of Kosmas, 'The Tabernacle of the glory of God

is translated in Zion to a heavenly abode.'77 And in an anonymous text it is said concerning

the apostles: 'When they beheld thee taken up on high from the earth, with joy they shouted

out to thee as Gabriel did, "Rejoice!"78 While the reference in Kosmas to 'the Tabernacle of

the glory' seems to be indeed an allusion to the Virgin's body, in none of these texts is it

specifically stated that the metastasis involves both body and soul together. Here, as

elsewhere, the hymnographers preserve an apophatic reserve.

Nevertheless, there are moments when the liturgical texts are more explicit. Two

examples stand out. In the first place, by virtue of the customary parallel between Mother

and Son, it follows that not only did Mary undergo a physical death, as Christ did, but that

like him she also was raised in her body from the dead and that, once more like him, she

ascended into heaven in her body. The point is implied, although not directly stated, by

Kosmas when he speaks of Mary 'imitating' Christ:

Imitating thy Son and Creator, thou hast submitted

To the laws of nature in a manner above nature.

Therefore, dying thou art risen,

To live eternally with thy Son.79

Kosmas goes on to suggest that, just as the apostles witnessed Christ's ascension into heaven,

so also the Virgin's ascension was 'manifest', that is to say, visible to human eyes:

Come, all peoples, and gaze in wonder:

For the Holy Mountain of God

Is most manifestly exalted above the hills of heaven.

The earthly heaven takes up her dwelling

In a heavenly and imperishable land.80

If Mary's heavenly ascent is 'manifest', must it not also have been bodily?

In the second place, the liturgical texts speak of the gates of heaven being 'lifted up',

as the Mother of God ascends on high (cf. Ps. 23[24] : 7-10). In the words of Kosmas:

59 FM, p. 511.61 15 August, Matins, Canon 2, Canticle 3 : 2 (FM, p.516).62 15 August, Matins, Sessional Hymn after the Polyeleos (FM, p.513). 63 15 August, Matins, Canon 2, Canticle 4 : 2 (FM, p.517). 64 15 August, Matins, Canon 2, Canticle 4 : 4 (FM, pp.517-18). 67 15 August, Matins, Canon 2, Canticles 8 : 3 (FM, p.523). 68 15 August, Matins, Canon 1, Canticle 9:2 (FM, p.524). 69 On the voluntary character of Mary's death, see Joseph Ledit, Marie dans la Liturgie de Byzance,

revised edn, Théologie Historique 37 (Paris: Beauchesne, 1979), pp. 225-7. 71 15 August, Matins, Canon 2, Canticle 6 : 3 (FM, p.520). 74 15 August, Matins, Canon 2, Canticle 6 : 2 (FM, p.520). 75 15 August, Great Vespers, Lord, I have cried 2 (FM, p.509). 76 15 August, Small Vespers, Lord, I have cried 3 (Greek) (FM, p.504). 77 15 August, Matins, Canon 1, Canticle 7 : 4 (FM, p.521). 78 15 August, Matins, Lands 2 (FM, p.525). 79 15 August, Matins, Canon 1, Canticle 1 : 3 (FM, p.515).80 15 August, Matins, Canon 1, Canticle 4 : 2 (FM, p.517). For the same parallel between Christ's

Ascension and that of Mary, see Great Vespers, Lity 1 (FM, p.508): 'It was right that the eye-

witnesses and ministers of the Word should also see the Dormition of his Mother according to the

flesh, even the final mystery concerning her: that so they might not only behold the Ascension of the

Saviour but also witness the Translation of her who gave him birth? The parallel implies that in both

cases it was a body that was received into heaven.

The gates of heaven were lifted up and the angels sang,

As Christ received the virgin treasure of his own Mother.81

Elsewhere it is said:

The Palace of the King withdraws:

The Ark of holiness is raised on high.

Let the gates be lifted up,

That the Gate of God may enter with abundant joy.82

Why, we may ask, would the gates need to be opened wide, if it was only Mary's soul that

was entering heaven?

In the following Doxastikon by Theophanes, although there is no direct reference to

the 'gates of heaven', the same idea is implied by the words 'heaven opens wide its embrace':

Come, O gathering of those who love to keep the feasts,

Come, and let us form a choir.

Come, let us crown the Church with songs,

As the Ark of God goes to her rest.

For today heaven opens wide its embrace,

As it receives the Mother of him who cannot be contained.

The earth, yielding up the Source of life,

Is robed in blessing and majesty.

Angels and apostles form a single choir,

As they gaze in great fear at her who bore the Cause of life,

Now that she is translated from life to life.

Let us venerate and implore her:

Forget not, Lady, thy ties of Kinship

With those who celebrate in faith

The feast of thine all-holy Dormition.83

Even though there is no actual mention here of the body of the Theotokos, does not a text

such as this suggest that there was something altogether distinctive and exceptional about the

end of Mary's life? In the case of an apostle or a martyr, does the Church in its liturgical

worship use language such as this concerning their death?

Yet can we not go further than this? There are indeed texts in the service books that

speak directly about the destiny of the Virgin's body after her burial in the tomb.

Paradise or heaven?

The service books, when speaking of the Virgin's body after burial, are first of all clear and

definite in affirming that the tomb was found to be empty:

Thy tomb remains empty of thy body,

Yet full of grace ….

* * *

Thy body was taken up from the tomb,

But thy blessing, pure Virgin, remains ever with us.84

If the tomb was found to be empty, where had the body gone? There are, as has been noted,

two possibilities: it may have been taken to Paradise, there to await the final resurrection, as

in the 'Bethlehem' traditions; or it may have been reunited with the soul, as in the 'Palm'

traditions, and taken up into heaven itself: The evidence in favour of the second alternative is

stronger, but there are also unmistakable traces of the 'assumptionless' Paradise tradition.

The clearest reference to the 'Paradise' tradition is to be found in the first sessional

hymn (Kathisma) that is used at Matins on three occasions during the course of the Feast, on

14, 17 and 20 August:

84 14 August, Matins, Canon 1, Canticle 7 : 2-3 (Greek).

Thy rational soul was taken to the heavenly places

Thy pure tabernacle was translated from corruption into Paradise,

And there it rejoices, O All-Holy.

There is no suggestion here that the two, Mary's soul and the 'tabernacle' of her body, have

been reunited prior to the Paronsia. St Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain, not without reason,

objects to this Kathisma and he suspects that there has been a textual corruption in the printed

Menaion; there is, so he claims, a different and more 'orthodox' reading to be found in the

manuscripts.85 While passing over the reading proposed by Nikodimos, the redactors of the

modern Athens editions of the Menaion sometimes propose other emendations; but they are

not consistent, and it is unclear what manuscript authority (if any) they have for the

alterations that they suggest.86 Pace Nikodimos and the Athens redactors, it seems that the

text, as translated above, is in fact authentic.

Nor does this sessional hymn stand alone. There is another such sessional hymn that

also reflects the 'Paradise' tradition:

The hosts of angels truly gazed upon they translation,

O spotless Mother of God,

Thou who art blessed, hymned by the whole world, all-holy.

Obedient to the will of him who was born from thee,

They assembled the company of the disciples,

And full of joy they carried they precious body to Paradise.87

Nothing is said here about any subsequent reuniting of the Virgin's body with her soul.

Further support for the Paradise tradition is provided by a Doxastikon attributed to the

Emperor Leo the Wise (reigned 886-912):

O Theotokos, Jesus thy Son and our God,

87 16 August, Matins, Sessional Hymn 1 (Greek); Sessional Hymn 2 (Slav) (tr. Lambertsen, The

Menaion of the Orthodox Church, vol 11, p. 181.

Confirming the reality of his two natures,

Died as man and rose as God.

And it was his good pleasure that thou, O Mother of God,

Shouldest die in accordance with the law of nature,

Lest the unbelieving should imagine

That the Incarnation was an illusion.

Thou, the heavenly Bride, hast passed into the heavens,

Departing from the earth, and leaving

The nuptial chamber that is they tabernacle.

The air was sanctified by thine ascent,

Just as the earth was illumined by thy birth giving.

The apostles escorted thee, and the angels received them.

So it was that, after the apostles had buried thine all-pure body,

As they sang a funeral hymn, they saw it exalted on high,

And they said in fear, 'This is the change

Wrought by the right hand of the Most High.

For he was in the midst of thee,

And thou shalt not be shaken.'

Yet, Maiden greatly praised,

Cease not to watch over us,

For we are thy people, the sheep of thy pasture,

And we have called upon thy name,

As king through thee for salvation and great mercy.88

At first sight, this might easily be read as an eloquent hymn in honour of the Bodily

Assumption. But, if studied carefully, it turns out to be something different. It does indeed

state that after Mary's burial the apostles saw her body 'exalted on high', but nothing is said

about the destination to which the body was taken, whether to heaven or to Paradise. While it

is clearly affirmed that the Holy Virgin has 'passed into the heavens', this, she did, according

to Leo, after 'leaving the nuptial chamber' of her body; in other words, in her soul alone.

Nowhere in Leo's Doxastikon is it specified that, after her soul had left her body, the two

were afterwards reunited, so that body and soul could together be assumed into heavenly

glory. As Leo made clear in his Homily on the Dormition, he did not in fact believe in the

Bodily Assumption, but considered that until the Last Day her body remains in what he calls

'a region of great purity', that is to say, in Paradise.89 Thus, impressive though Leo's

Doxastikon may be as a piece of liturgical poetry, it would be unwise to invoke it as firm

evidence for the doctrine of the Bodily Assumption.90

There are, however, other liturgical texts that speak, with varying degrees of

directness, about the ascension of the Holy Virgin's body not just into Paradise but into

heaven. St Kosmas, for example, writes: 'Dying thou art risen, to live eternally with thy

Son.'91 In speaking here of a 'resurrection', even though he does not specifically mention

Mary's body, St Kosmas definitely suggests that she has anticipated the general resurrecting

of the dead on the Last Day. For his part, St John of Damascus, referring to the Virgin's

'translation', states that angels with their wings covered her body, and not just her soul:

At thy translation, O Mother of God,

The angelic hosts in fear and joy

With their most holy wings covered thy body,

Which had been specious enough to harbour the Divinity.92

Admittedly this stanza does not affirm explicitly that the angels were carrying her body in to

heaven, not Paradise; but this is clear when the stanza is read in the light of that which comes

92 15 August, Matins, Canon 2, Canticle 4:3 (FM, p. 517).

before it, where there is a specific allusion to heaven: 'The earthly Heaven takes up her

dwelling in a heavenly and imperishable land.'93 As his three Homilies on the Dormition

make abundantly clear, John did in fact believe firmly in the Bodily Assumption.

Further texts treat the empty tomb as evidence that the Virgin has been assumed into

heaven:

O marvellous wonder!

The source of life is laid in the tomb,

And the tomb becomes a ladder to heaven.94

The tomb of the Virgin Mother of God

Is a ladder to heaven, leading up

Those who ever glorify her with faith.95

Thy tomb, All-Undefiled, proclaims thy burial;

And now it proclaims also thy translation

Into heaven with thy body.96

In itself the emptiness of the tomb is of course perfectly compatible with the belief that the

Virgin's body is in Paradise; here, however, it is definitely said to have been translated into

heaven.

The following text is equally definite:

Wonder most dread! She who carried in her womb

The King whom nothing can contain

Is laid in a grave; and with fear

The hosts of angels together with the apostles

Bury her precious body that received God;

And Jesus her Son, the Saviour of our souls,

Raised it up on high into the heavens.97

The two most striking texts in support of the Bodily Assumption are to be found at

Greek Vespers for the Feast. First, at the Apostolica it is said of the Apostles:

They rejoiced, All-Hymned Virgin, as they buried the body,

The origin of Life and holder of God.

On high the most holy and venerable of the angelic powers

Bowed in wonder before the marvel, and said one to another:

'Lift up your gates and receive

Her who bore the Creator of heaven and earth.

With songs of praise let us glorify her precious and holy body,

Which contained the Lord on whom we may not gaze.98

Here it is abundantly clear that the heavenly gates are being 'lifted up' expressly to receive the

Virgin's body, along with her soul.

Equally decisive is the lengthy Doxastikon, before the Entrance at Great Vespers for

the Feast. All eight Fones are used in the course of this one text (a formidable challenge to

the choir):

By the royal command of God, the divinely inspired apostles were caught

up from over all the world into the Clouds on high.

Reaching thine immaculate tabernacle, the source of Life, they saluted it with

mighty joy.

The highest powers of heaven stood by, with their own Master.

Seized with dread, they accompanied thine inviolate body that had held God;

and, ascending on high, they went before thee, crying unseen to the hierarchies

above: 'Lo, the Queen of all, the Maid of God, draws nigh.'

Lift up the gates, and receive above the world the Mother of everlasting Light.

For through her the salvation of all mankind has come. We have not the

strength to look upon her, and cannot render to her the honour that is right.99

Once more, there is no doubt that the angels, as they ascend on high, are accompanying the

body of the Mother of God, not only her soul, and that, when the gates of heaven are to be

'lifted up', it is in order to receive her body.

Passages such as these plainly affirm that the Holy Virgin has been received into

heaven in the integral totality of her glorified personhood, body as well as soul. It has to be

admitted, however, that the liturgical texts in which the Bodily Assumption is explicitly

affirmed are 'much less numerous than we might have expected', as Jugie observes.100 But

such texts are by no means altogether lacking, and when they occur they deserve to be given

full weight. The language used, it is true, is that of doxology, not of logical analysis; of

symbolism, not of syllogistic reasoning. Surely this is only to be expected, since the

hymnography is dealing with an event that belongs to the Age to come rather than the present

age, to meta history rather than history. Despite, then, the apophatic reticence of many

passages, it can justly be concluded that belief in Mary's final glorification, soul and body

together, is indeed part of the liturgical theology of the Orthodox Church.

Unique, yet universal

The Orthodox service books, so we have concluded, on a number of occasions affirm as a

fact that the Virgin Mary was assumed with her body into the eternal joy of heaven. What

theological meaning does the Church attach to this fact? On the whole the hymnography

does not provide a direct answer to this question. But, drawing upon other sources, we may

attempt a brief response.

The Holy Virgin's place in the scheme of salvation may be interpreted in two ways.

These are to be seen not as alternatives but as complementary; both approaches are needed.

And in both cases her role is to be understood as strictly 'under Christ', who is as much her

Saviour as he is Saviour of the rest of the human race (see Luke 1:47). First, Mary may be

seen as unique, that is to say, as distinct from all other members of the human race, and called

to fulfil a vocation never assigned in the whole of history to any other person on this earth.

Second, she may be seen as our archetype and representative, that is to say, as the model and

pattern of what we are all of us intended to be, as the fullest and highest example – next to

Christ her Son, and solely through his grace and power – of what it is to be human. These

two manners of approaching the mystery of the Theotokos – in terms of both her singularity

and her universality – may be applied to all the main moments of her earthly life, and not

least to her final glorification.

First, the Holy Virgin is unique in the sense that there has been only one Divine

Incarnation, and so there can be only one Mother of God. Throughout the entire history of

the world, both past and future, only once has a baby been born who, while entirely human, is

also the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, 'true God from true God'; and so throughout the

entire history of the world, both past and future, only once has there been a woman who was

chosen to be, in the literal and physical sense, Birthgiver of God. Spiritually, it is true, we are

all of us called to give birth to God in our hearts; but here we are speaking of a maternity that

is mystical, not physical.

In texts concerning the Dormition, as we have seen, the distinctiveness of Mary is

underlined chiefly through the repeated analogy that is drawn between her and Christ. As His

Mother, she was (and is) uniquely close to the Saviour. By virtue of her Divine Maternity,

her life was conformed to his in every possible respect, due allowance being made, of course,

for the all-important point of differentiation that He is the only-begotten Son of God, divine

by nature, whereas she is a created human person, divinized by grace.101 Because she

initiated him in all things – because 'there is nothing between Mother and Son'102 – all that he

experienced, she experienced also. When he suffered on the Cross, she co-suffered with him

(Luke 2: 35). He submitted to death and burial, and therefore she too did not 'refuse' to

undergo these things.103 He rose from the dead, and so she too has been resurrected: 'dying,

thou art risen.'104 He ascended with his body into heaven, and so she too has ascended bodily

into the celestial realm. In this way, the Assumption may be regarded as a direct

consequence of Mary's Motherhood, and as such it is a unique privilege. Only one person

has become in the physical sense Birthgiver of God, and so only one person has been called,

prior to the Second Coming, to share physically in Christ's Resurrection and Ascension.

Not that Orthodoxy sees the Assumption solely as the consequence of the Divine

Maternity; it is also regarded, although to a lesser degree, as the fruit and fulfilment of Mary's

pre-eminent holiness and 'surpassing purity'.105 For Roman Catholics, it is natural in this

context to establish a close link between the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception of

the Virgin, as is done in the definition of 1950. Orthodox would not speak in this context in

terms of the Immaculate Conception, for this is a doctrine foreign to the tradition of the

Christian East. But we do indeed regard the Mother of God as Panagia, 'All-Holy', free from

all personal sin (although subject to the effects of original sin); and we do indeed regard her

final glorification as the crowning and reward of the sanctity by which her whole life was

marked in an exceptional and unique manner.106

Yet, in calling Mary's Assumption a 'unique privilege', are we not forgetting Enoch

and Elijah? It is certainly true that, according to the Biblical account, they were both taken

up into heaven. Yet between them and Mary there is a crucial difference. She died in the

normal way, after which she was raised from the dead and so entered heaven. They, on the

other hand, were taken up into heaven alive, without ever undergoing death. In fact, in

Patristic eschatology Enoch and Elijah are sometimes identified with the 'two witnesses'

mentioned in Revelation 11: 3-11; in the opinion of St John of Damascus and others, they

will return to earth in the Last Days, when they will suffer death at the hands of Antichrist.107

For Mary, death is an experience in the past; for Enoch and Elijah, in the future.108

Such is the basic meaning of the Assumption of the Holy Virgin, seen as a distinctive

privilege. In Mary's case, and in hers alone, the resurrection of the body has been anticipated

and is already an accomplished fact. She has passed beyond death and judgement, and in the

integral totality of her personhood, soul and body together, she dwells even now in the full

glory of the Age to come. In this she is unique: no other created person has pre-empted the

Eschaton in such a way.

That, however, is only one half of the truth. While Mary is indeed unique, she is also

the paradigm of what it means to be human, the mirror in which we see reflected our own

true face. In her final glorification we see revealed the supreme purpose for which the human

race was created. As Fr Alexander Schmemann (1921-83) expresses it, 'In her, a part of this

world is totally glorified and deified.'109 But this deification or theosis, fully realized in the

person of the Mother of God, is at the same time the ultimate aim of us all, our common

vocation. The resurrection of the body, which in her case has already occurred, awaits every

one of us at the Parousia. In that eternal splendour where she dwells even now, body and

soul together, we too look forward to sharing, body and soul together – 'under the Mercy'.

'I go to prepare a place for you' (John 14:2): what Jesus says to the apostles, Mary

says to each of us. She is (next to Christ himself) the first fruits, and we are the harvest. She

is the forerunner, and we are her posterity. So her Assumption, which from one point of view

marks her out from the rest of humankind, at the same time indicates the path that we are all

invited to follow. She is in truth Hodigitria, 'The one who points the way'.

In this manner the Bodily Assumption of the Virgin has an eschatological

significance: it is a safeguard and guarantee of the future hope of all humanity. 'As Mother of

the Lord,' says St Mark of Ephesus (? 1394-1445), 'she died and rose again, to assure us of

the final resurrection, for which we hope.'110 On 15 August, says St Andrew of Crete, we are

commemorating a miracle that is 'proper to her', yet 'common to us all';111 we are celebrating

'our lot … set aside for human nature from the beginning'.112 In Mary's glorification, we see

'the goal of all our past and present hopes, the sum of all good things, the revelation of all that

is hidden and will only be seen in days to come, the final end'.113 In this sense, the

Assumption is a feast in honour not of Mary alone but of our shared human nature. It is our

festival as well as hers.

By confirming the future hope in the resurrection of the body, the Assumption of the

Theotokos at the same time safeguards the true understanding of human nature. The Bodily

Glorification of Many, like the Bodily Resurrection of Christ, proclaims the unity of our

created personhood, body and soul together. It makes clear that the human being, fashioned

in the image and likeness of God, is a psychosomatic whole. If Mary's body has been

glorified, then that should fill us with an ever-increasing awe and wonder before the mystery

of our own embodied state. It should lead us to reflect with renewed attentiveness upon the

words of St Paul: 'Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit …. Glorify God in your body ….

Present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God' (1 Cor. 6: 19-20; Rom.

12:1). Our body is not an extraneous piece of clothing, still less a prison or tomb, but an

essential aspect of our total personhood. Salvation and deification (theosis) embrace the body

along with the soul.

Viewing human nature in this way in the light of the Assumption, and recognizing

how the bodily glorification of the Holy Virgin reveals to us the true value of our own

physicality, we are helped to understand the true Christian significance of death. The

separation is not natural but profoundly contranatural. It is a tragic anomaly, the consequence

of sin. Furthermore, it is no more than temporary. We look beyond this separation to the

moment when soul and body will be reunited at the General Resurrection on the Last Day.

For Mary, physical death was no more than an entry into more abundant life; and, by God's

grace and through her prayers, the same can be the case with our death.

Nor is this all. The Church's celebration on 15 August is not only a Mariological

feast, a feast in honour of the Holy Virgin; it is not only an eschatological feast, giving us an

assurance of our own future resurrection; it is not only an anthropological feast, reminding us

that as human beings we are an integral unity of soul and body; it is also an ecological feast,

teaching us the spiritual significance of matter. Our physical body is part of the material

creation; and so, if the Feast of the Assumption celebrates the value of the human body, it

celebrates equally the Spirit-bearing potentialities of all material things. It shows us how the

sacred can lay hold of the realm of matter; it is, in the words of Andronikoff, 'a feast of the

flesh, of matter, called to transfiguration'114 Mary's transfiguration foreshadows the

transfiguration of all material things. It is no coincidence that the feasts of the Saviour's

Transfiguration and of his Mother's Assumption both occur in the same month, separated by

little more than a week. The proximity is noetic as well as chronological. Such , then, are the

ecological implications of the Assumption: it is a feast on which we honour the union of

matter and Spirit, of earth and heaven, accomplished supremely in the person of the

Theotokos: 'Hail, thou who alone by thy childbearing hast joined together earthly things with

things on high.'115

From all this it can be seen how our faith in the Bodily Assumption of the Blessed

Virgin Mary is directly related to the concluding clause in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan

Creed: 'I await the resurrection of the dead and the life of the Age to come.' The Feast of the

Dormition expresses the 'finality' of human history, to use Andronikoff's phrase; as he states,

'Along with the Transfiguration and, of course, Pascha, the Dormition is essentially an

81 15 August, Matins, Canon 1, Canticle 4 : 4 (p. 517). Compare 18 August, Vespers, Aposticha 1

(Greek): 'Gates of the heavens, be opened ….'82 15 August, Small Vespers, Lord, I have cried 2 (Greek) (FM, p. 504). Cf. Ps. 131[132] : 8; Ezek.

44 : 1-3. 83 15 August, Great Vespers, Lity 5 (FM, p. 509). 85 Synaxaristis, vol. 1, pp. 320-1, note 1. 86 In the Rome edition of the Menaion (vol. 6, pp. 398, 433, 456-7), the Greek text is unemended,

reading as in the translation given here. The Apostoliki Diakonia edition of the Menaion (vol. 12, pp.

76, 98, 112). also leaves the Greek unemended. Finally, yet more perversely, on 20 August it gives

the original, unemended text (p. 200). All of which goes to show how greatly the Orthodox Church

needs an authoritative critical edition of the service books. 88 17 August, Matins, Aposticha 4 (Greek); 16 August, Vespers, Aposticha 5 (Slav) (tr. Lambertsen, p.

180). Cf. Ps. 18:6 [19:5]; 76:11 [77:10]; 45:6 [46:5]; 78 [79]:13. 89 This Homily can be found in PG 107: 157-72; the decisive passage is at 161C-164A. See Jugie, La

Mort et l'Assumption, pp. 265-8.90 John of Damascus alludes briefly to Paradise, when he says: 'Going to dwell in the tomb, she made

it Paradise' (15 August, Matins, Canon 2, Canticle 8:4 [FM, p. 523]). Here, however, he is clearly

speaking in symbolical terms, and is not referring to Paradise in the narrower sense, as a place of

waiting distinct from heaven. Thus this provides no support for the notion that the Virgin's body is

being preserved in Paradise, separate from her soul (a doctrine John certainly did not hold). 91 15 August, Matins, Canon 1, Canticles 1:3 (FM, p. 515). 93 15 August, Matins, Canon 2, Canticle 4:2 (FM, p. 517). 94 15 August, Vespers, Lord, I have cried 1 (FM, p. 506). 95 16 August, Vespers, Aposticha 3; also 19 August, Matins, Aposticha 2 (Greek); cf. 20 August,

Matins, Aposticha 2 (Slav); tr. Lambertsen, p. 235. 96 97 18 August, Vespers, Lord, I have cried 3 (Greek). 98 15 August, Great Vespers, Apostocha 4 (FM, p. 511). Cf. Ps. 23[24]: 7-10. 99 15 August, Great Vespers, Lord, I have cried 4 (FM, p. 507).

apocalyptic feast.'116 This apocalyptic, eschatological significance of Mary, disclosed above

all through her Assumption, is one of the leitmotifs in the greatest of all Marian poems in the

Christian East, the Akathist Hymn:

Rejoice, bright dawn of the mystical day ….

Rejoice, promised land ….

100 La Mort et l'Assumption, p. 188. 101 On the Orthodox conception of theosis (fundamental for any understanding of the Bodily

Assumption, see Julius Gross, The Divinisation of the Christian according to the Greek Fathers

(Anaheim, CA: A & C Press, 2000); Normal Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek

Patristic Tradition (Oxford: University Press, 2004). 102 See note 12. 103 See note 64. 104 See note 79, 90. 105 See note 66. 106 Orthodox and Roman Catholics agree over the Bodily Assumption but not over the Immaculate

Conception. This latter divergence, however, should not be exaggerated; and it is in any case a

disagreement, not so much in our understanding of the consequences of the Fall. See Kallistos Ware,

'The Sanctity and Glory of the Mother of God: Orthodox Approaches', The Way, Supplement 51

(1984), pp. 79-96, especially pp. 90-91; also the discussion between Edward Yarnold, SJ, and

Kallistos Ware at the Congress of the Ecumenical Society of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Chichester,

1986, later published as a pamphlet: The Immaculate Conception: A Search for Convergence

(Wallington: ESBVM, 1987). 107 See Brian E. Daley, The Hope of the Early Church (Cambridge: University Press, 1991), pp. 179-

80, 203; T.L. Frazier, A Second Look at the Second Coming: Sorting through the Speculations (Ben

Lomond, CA: Conciliar Press, 1999), pp. 227-9. 108 The anticipated resurrection of the 'saints' who rose from their graves and entered the Holy City in

their bodies, following Christ's Crucifixion (Matt. 27: 52-53), is altogether different from Mary's

anticipated resurrection. There is no suggestion that these 'saints' were then assumed into heaven;

presumably they subsequently returned to their graves. 109 The Virgin Mary, The Celebration of Faith, Sermons, vol. 3 (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir's

Seminary Press, 1995), p. 92. 110 Quoted in Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain, Synaxaristis, vol. 2, p.320, note 1. 111 Homilies on the Dormition 1:8 (tr. Daley, p.114). 112 Homilies on the Dormition 3:5 (tr. Daley, p.140).

Rejoice, radiant foreshadowing of the resurrection glory ….

Rejoice, hope of eternal blessings.117

Despite the fact that belief in the Bodily Assumption forms part, as we have argued,

of the liturgical tradition of the Orthodox Church – despite the fact, moreover, that it is

intimately linked with our faith in the resurrection of the body, with our theology of the

human person, and with our expectation of cosmic transfiguration nevertheless this is not

something that we Orthodox wish to see defined as a dogma. We prefer to maintain the

apophatic reticence that the Church's hymnography displays when speaking of Mary's final

glorification. Agreeing with that shrewd Englishman William of Ockham (c.1285-1347),

Orthodoxy considers that dogmas, like entities, are not to be multiplied without reason. As Fr

Alexander Schmemann insists:

Mary is not part of the Church's Kerygma, whose only content is Christ. She

is the inner secret of communion with Christ. The Church preaches Christ, not

Mary. But communion with Christ reveals Mary as the secret joy within the

Church. 'In her,' says a hymn, 'rejoices all creation.'118

Speaking in general about devotion to the Virgin Mary – but his words apply more especially

to her Assumption – Fr Alexander continues:

It is not an object of faith, but its fruit; not a nota ecclesiae but the self-

revelation of the Church; not even a doctrine, but the life and fragrance of

doctrine in us.119

113 Homilies on the Dormition 3:9 (tr. Daley, p.145).114 Le sens des fêtes, vol. 1, p.292. 115 15 August, Matins, Lands 2 (FM, p.525). 116 Le sens des fêtes, vol. 1, p.293. 117 Ikos 5, 6, 7 and 8: (The Lenten Triodion, pp. 426, 427, 429, 430). 118 The Virgin Mary, p. 89.

We do well to heed Vladimir Lossky's warning: 'Let us therefore keep silence, and let us not

try to dogmatize about the supreme glory of the Mother of God.'120 As we say in the Akathist

Hymn: 'Rejoice, faith in that which must be guarded by silence.'121 It is enough for us to

repeat the opening words of the first hymn at Great Vespers for the Feast: 'O marvellous

wonder!'122

119 The Virgin Mary, p. 93. 120 'Panagia', in Mascall, The Mother of God, p. 35; reprinted in V. Lossky, In the Image and Likeness

of God (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1974), p. 209. 121 Ikos 2 (The Lenten Triodion, p. 423). 122 15 August, Great Vespers, Lord, I have cried 1 (FM, p. 506).