How the Holy Orthodox Church Honored and Honors the Mother of God

Contents I. Veneration of the Mother of God during the days of Her earthly life II. The first enemies of the veneration of Our Lady III. Attempts by Jews and heretics to discredit the Ever-Virginity of Mary IV. The Nestorian heresy, which proclaimed the Mother of God only as the Mother of Christ, and the Third Ecumenical Council V. Attempts of the iconoclasts to reduce the glory of the Queen of Heaven and their shame VI. “Jealousy is beyond understanding” (Rom. 10:2). Perversion by the Latins in the newly invented dogma of the “Immaculate Conception” of the true veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Ever-Virgin Mary VII. Orthodox veneration of the Mother of God “It is worthy to magnify You, most honorable Cherub and most glorious without comparison Seraphim” On June 22, 1931, in Belgrade, a solemn consecration of the church-chapel in honor of the Iveron miraculous icon of the Mother of God, built in a cemetery reserved for Russians, took place. The consecration was performed by Serbian Patriarch Varnava, co-served by Metropolitan Anthony of Kyiv and Galicia and Bishop Nicholas of London. What a wonderful combination of names! The East (Iveria - Georgia) and the capital of the West - London, the Hierarch of the sacred font of the Russian people, the patriarch of which was once called the patriarch of “and all northern countries”, and the first hierarch of the southern Slavs - all this unites for a celebration in honor of the Most Honest Cherub. But it is even more significant when we remember that on the day when the icon of the Intercessor of the Christian family, delivered from the earthly inheritance of the Mother of God - the Holy Mount Athos - was carried through the streets of Belgrade, on that very day the 1500th anniversary of the opening of the Third Ecumenical Council was celebrated, when in the evening the people solemnly welcomed the Holy Fathers, who defended the veneration of the Mother of God and condemned the heretics who blasphemed her. Orthodox Christians, separated from each other by space or centuries, are united by their love for She Who gave birth to the One who united the heavenly and the earthly. Truly, Her words have come true and are coming true: “From now on all generations will make Me blessed” (Luke 1:48). I. Veneration of the Mother of God during the days of Her earthly life From Apostolic times to the present day, all who truly love Christ pay homage to the One who gave birth to Him, raised Him and protected Him in the days of His childhood. If God the Father chose Her, the Holy Spirit descended on Her, God the Son dwelt in Her, obeyed Her in the days of childhood, cared for her while hanging on the cross, then shouldn’t everyone who professes the Holy Trinity bow to Her? Even in the days of Her earthly life, the friends of Christ, the Apostles, showed great care and devotion towards the Mother of the Lord, especially the Evangelist John the Theologian, who, fulfilling the will of Her Divine Son, took to himself and cared for Her as a Mother, from the time the Lord spoke to him from the cross: “Behold Your Mother” (John 19:27). Evangelist Luke wrote several images of Her, some together with the Eternal Child, others without Him. When he brought and showed them to the Blessed Virgin, She approved of them and said: “The grace of My Son will be with them,” and repeated the song that She had once sung in the house of Elizabeth: “My soul magnifies the Lord, and My spirit rejoices in God, My Savior” (Luke 1:46) However, during her earthly life, the Virgin Mary shied away from the glory that belonged to Her as the Mother of the Lord. She preferred to spend her life in silence and prepare for the transition to eternal life. Until the last day of Her earthly life, She cared about being worthy of the Kingdom of Her Son, and before her death she prayed that He would deliver Her soul from the evil spirits that meet human souls on the way to heaven and seek to capture them in order to take them to hell. The Lord fulfilled the prayer of His Mother and at the hour of Her death He Himself came from heaven with many Angels to receive Her soul. Since the Mother of God also prayed that she could say goodbye to the apostles, the Lord gathered at Her death all the apostles, except Thomas, who were brought by invisible force to Jerusalem that day from all over the universe, where they preached, and they were present at Her blessed transition into eternal life. With sacred chants, the apostles buried Her Most Pure Body, and on the third day they opened the coffin to once again venerate the remains of the Mother of God, together with the Apostle Thomas, who then arrived in Jerusalem. But they did not find a body in the tomb and returned to themselves in bewilderment, and during the meal the Mother of God Herself appeared to them in the air, shining with heavenly light and told them that Her Son had glorified Her body, and She, resurrected, stood before His Throne. At the same time, She promised to be with them always. The apostles greeted the Mother of God with great joy and began to venerate Her not only as the Mother of their beloved Teacher and Lord, but also as their heavenly helper, patroness of Christians and intercessor for the entire human race before the Righteous Judge. And wherever the Gospel of Christ was preached, His Most Pure Mother began to be glorified. II. The first enemies of the veneration of the Mother of God The more the faith of Christ spread, the more the Name of the Savior of the world was glorified on earth, and with Him She Who was honored to be the Mother of the God-Man, the more the hatred of Christ’s enemies towards Her increased. Mary was the Mother of Jesus. She showed an unprecedented example of purity and righteousness, moreover, even after moving from this life, She was a powerful, although invisible with bodily eyes, support of Christians. Therefore, everyone who hated Jesus Christ and did not believe in Him, who did not understand His teachings, or rather, did not want to understand as the Church understood, who wanted to replace Christ’s preaching with their own human speculations - all of them transferred their hatred of Christ, the Gospel and the Church to the Most Pure Virgin Mary. They wanted to humiliate the Mother in order to destroy faith in Her Son, to create a false idea of ​​Her among people, in order to be able to rebuild the entire Christian teaching on other grounds. In the womb of Mary, God and man united; She was the One who served as a ladder for the Son of God who descended from heaven. To strike a blow to Her veneration means to strike Christianity at the root, to destroy it at its very foundation. And the very beginning of Her heavenly glory was marked on earth by an outbreak of malice and hatred of the infidels towards Her. When, after Her Holy death, the apostles carried Her body for burial in Gethsemane to the place She had chosen, John the Theologian ahead carried a branch of paradise, which three days before Archangel Gabriel brought to the Holy Virgin, coming from heaven to announce Her impending transition to the heavenly abodes. “In the exodus of Israel from Egypt, to the house of Jacob there was a barbarian among the people” (Ps. 113:1) - began the Apostle Peter, “Alleluia” was picked up by the entire assembly of the apostles and their disciples, such as, for example, Dionysius the Areopagite, who were also miraculously delivered to Jerusalem then. And when this sacred song was sung, which the Jews called “the great alleluia,” i.e. the great “praise God,” one Jewish priest, Athos, jumped up to the stretcher and wanted to overturn it and throw the body of the Mother of God to the ground. Afonius's insolence was immediately punished: Archangel Michael cut off his hands with an invisible sword, leaving them hanging on the stretcher. The stunned Athos, experiencing excruciating pain, in the consciousness of his sin, turned with prayer to Jesus, whom he had hated until then, and was immediately healed. He did not hesitate to accept Christianity and confess it to his former co-religionists, for which he suffered martyrdom from them. Thus, the attempt to insult the honor of the Mother of God served to glorify Her more. The enemies of Christ no longer dared to use brute force to show their disrespect for the body of the Most Pure One, but their malice did not stop. Seeing that Christianity was spreading everywhere, they began to spread various vile slander about Christians. They did not spare the name of the Mother of Christ and invented that Jesus of Nazareth came from a low and immoral environment, and His Mother was friends with a Roman soldier. But the lie here was too obvious for this invention to attract serious attention. The entire family of the Betrothed Joseph and Mary herself were well known by the contemporary residents of Nazareth and its environs. “Where does this wisdom and power come from? Is this not the tecton, the son of the tectons, Joseph, the son of Mary, the brother of Jacob and Josiah, and Judah, and Simon? And aren’t His sisters here in us?” - said His compatriots in Nazareth, when Christ revealed His unearthly wisdom to them in the synagogue. (Matthew 13:54–55; Mark 6:3; Luke 4:22). In small towns, everyone's family details are well known; The purity of married life was then very strictly monitored. Would Jesus really have been treated with respect and allowed to preach in the synagogue if He had been born from an illegal relationship? The law of Moses would have been applied to Mary, commanding the stoning of such persons; The Pharisees would have taken the opportunity more than once to reproach Christ for the behavior of His Mother. Meanwhile, the opposite was true: Mary was highly respected, she was an honored guest at a wedding in Cana, and even when Her Son was condemned, no one allowed themselves to ridicule or blame His Mother. III. Attempts by Jews and heretics to discredit the Ever-Virginity of Mary The Jewish slanderers soon learned that it was almost impossible to discredit the Mother of Jesus, and that from the information they themselves possessed it was much easier to prove Her praiseworthy life. Therefore, they abandon this slander of theirs, which was already picked up by the pagans (Origen. Against Celsus, I), and try to prove at least that Mary was not a virgin when she gave birth to Christ. They even say that the prediction of the birth of the Messiah by a Virgin never existed, and that therefore it is completely in vain that Christians think of exalting Jesus by this; as if the prophecy was fulfilled on Him. There were Jewish translators (Aquila, Simachus, Theodotion) who compiled new translations of the Old Testament into Greek and in them they translated the famous prophecy of Isaiah: “Behold, a young woman will conceive” (Is. 7:14); they argued that the Hebrew speech aalma means a young woman, and not a virgin, as it was in the sacred translation of 70 interpreters, where this place is translated “Behold the Virgin will receive with child.” With the new translation they wanted to show that Christians, based on an incorrect translation of the word aalma, think to attribute to Mary the completely impossible - a birth without a husband, while in reality the birth of Christ is no different from other human births. However, the malicious intent of the new translators was clearly revealed, since from a comparison of different places in the Bible it is clearly seen that the word “aalma” means “virgin”. And not only Jews, but also pagans, on the basis of their traditions and various predictions, expected that the Deliverer of the world would be born of a Virgin. The Gospel clearly stated that the Lord Jesus was born of a virgin. “What will this be like, I don’t know where I have a husband,” Mary, who had taken a vow of virginity, asked the Archangel Gabriel, who announced to Her about the birth of Christ. And the Angel answered: “The Holy Spirit will come upon You and the power of the Highest will overshadow You; In the same way, that which is holy and to be born will be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:34–35). Later, an Angel appeared to righteous Joseph, who wanted to let Mary leave the house, knowing that She conceived without entering into marital cohabitation with him. The Archangel Gabriel said to Joseph: “Do not be afraid to receive Miriam your wife, for that which is born in her of the Spirit is Holy,” and reminded him of the prophecies of Isaiah about the Virgin Conception (Matthew 1:18–25). The frozen rod of Aaron (Numbers 17:8), the stone without hands torn from the mountain, seen by Nebuchadnezzar in a dream interpreted by the prophet Daniel (Dan 2:31–45), the closed gates seen by the prophet Ezekiel (Ezekiel 44:1–4), and much more in the Old Testament prefigured the birth of a Virgin. Just as Adam was created by the Word of God from uncultivated and virgin soil, so the Word of God created flesh for Himself from a virgin womb, when the Son of God became the new Adam in order to correct the fall of the first Adam (St. Irenaeus of Lyons, book III). Only those who reject the Gospel can and could reject the seedless birth of Christ, and the Church of Christ from time immemorial has confessed Christ “incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary.” But the birth of God from the Ever-Virgin was a stumbling block for those people who wanted to be called Christians, but did not want to humble themselves in mind and be zealous for the purity of life. Mary’s pure life was a reproach for those who are unclean in their thoughts. In order to appear as Christians, they did not dare to deny that Christ was born of a Virgin, but began to assert that Mary remained a Virgin only “until she gave birth to her firstborn son... Jesus” (Matthew 1:25). “After the birth of Jesus,” said the false teacher Helvidius in the 4th century, as well as many before and after him, “Mary entered into married life with Joseph and had children from him, called in the Gospel the brothers and sisters of Christ.” But the word “dondezhe” does not mean that Mary remained a Virgin only until a certain time. The word "dondezhe" and others like it often mean eternity. The Holy Scriptures say about Christ: “In His days righteousness and abundance of peace will shine, until the moon is taken away” (Ps. 71:7), but this does not mean that when the moon disappears at the end of the world, the righteousness of God will not exist; then it will be she who will triumph. Or what does it mean when it is said: “It is fitting for Him to reign until He puts all enemies under His feet”? (1 Cor. 15:25; Ps. 109:1). Does the Lord really have to reign for only so long until His enemies are under His feet! And David, in the fourth psalm of degrees, says: “As the eyes of a servant are in the hand of her mistress, so are our eyes towards the Lord our God, until he will spare us” (Ps. 123:2). So, the prophet will have his eyes to the Lord until he asks for mercy, and having asked for mercy, he will turn him to earth? (Blessed Jerome. About the Ever-Virginity of Blessed Mary). The Savior in the Gospel says to the apostles: “Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20). So, at the end of the age, the Lord will depart from His disciples, and then, when they judge the twelve tribes of Israel on twelve thrones, they will not have the promised fellowship with the Lord? (Blessed Jerome. Ibid.). It is also wrong to think that the brothers and sisters of Christ were the children of His Blessed Mother. The names brother and sister have very different meanings. Denoting a certain kinship between people or their spiritual closeness, these words are used either in a broader or in a narrower sense. In any case, brothers or sisters are people who have a common father and mother, or only a common father or mother, even descended from different fathers and mothers, if their parents were later (widowed) married (half-brothers), or if their parents are related by close degrees of kinship (cousins). It is nowhere clear from the Gospel that the brothers of Jesus named there were or were considered children of His Mother. On the contrary, it was known that Jacob and others were the sons of Joseph, Mary's Betrothed, who was a widow and had children by his first wife. (St. Epiphanius of Cyprus. Panarion on heresy, 78). Also, the sister of His Mother, Mary of Cleopas, who stood with Her at the cross of the Lord (John 19:25), also had children who, with full right, in view of such a close relationship, could be called the brothers of the Lord. That the so-called brothers and sisters of the Lord were not the children of His Mother is clearly evident from the fact that the Lord entrusted His Mother to His beloved disciple John before His death (John 19:27). Why would He do this if She had more children besides Him? They would have taken care of Her themselves. The sons of Joseph, the imaginary father of Jesus, did not consider themselves obligated to take care of their, as they thought, stepmother, or, in any case, did not have for her the kind of love with which natural children treat their parents, and which the adopted John had for Her. Thus, a careful study of the Holy Scriptures clearly reveals the inconsistency of objections to the Ever-Virginity of Mary and puts to shame those who teach otherwise. IV. The Nestorian heresy, which proclaimed the Mother of God only as the Mother of Christ, and the Third Ecumenical Council When those who dared to speak against the holiness and purity of the Blessed Virgin Mary had to be silenced, then an attempt was made to destroy the veneration of Her as the Mother of God. In the 5th century, Archbishop Nestorius of Constantinople began to preach that only the man Jesus was born from Mary, into whom the Divine entered and dwelt in Him as in a church. He first allowed his presbyter Anastasius, and then he himself began to openly teach in church that Mary cannot be called the Mother of God, since She did not give birth to the God-man. He considered it humiliating for himself to worship the Child, wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger. Such sermons caused general confusion and concern for the purity of the faith, first in Constantinople, and then in all other places where rumors of the new teaching reached. St. Proclus, a disciple of John Chrysostom, who was then the Bishop of Cyzicus, and later the Archbishop of Constantinople, in the presence of Nestorius, delivered a sermon in the church in which he confessed the Son of God, born in the flesh from the Virgin, who truly is the Mother of God, for already in the womb of the Most Pure One, at the time of conception, the Divinity was united with the Child conceived by the Holy Spirit, Who, although only by His human nature was born from the Virgin Mary, was already born as true God and true man. Nestorius persisted and did not agree to change his teaching, saying that it was necessary to distinguish between Jesus and the Son of God, that Mary should be called not the Mother of God, but the Mother of Christ, since Jesus, born of Mary, was only a man - Christ (which means Messiah, anointed), similar to the former anointed of God - the prophets, only surpassing them in the fullness of communication with God. The teaching of Nestorius, thus, was a denial of the entire economy of God, for if only man was born from Mary, then it was not God who suffered for us, but man. Saint Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, having learned about the teachings of Nestorius and the church disorders caused by him in Constantinople, wrote a letter to Nestorius, in which he urged him to adhere to the teachings that the Church professed from its foundation, and not to introduce anything new into it. In addition, St. Cyril wrote to the clergy and people of Constantinople to be firm in the Orthodox faith and not to be afraid of persecution by Nestorius of those who did not agree with him. Reported by St. Cyril about everything and to Rome, St. Pope Celestine, who with all his flock was then firm in Orthodoxy. St. Celestine, for his part, wrote to Nestorius and urged him to preach the Orthodox faith, and not his own faith. Nestorius remained deaf to all convictions and replied that what he preached was the Orthodox faith, and his opponents were heretics. St. Cyril also wrote to Nestorius and composed 12 anathemas, i.e. outlined in 12 members the main differences between the Orthodox teaching and that preached by Nestorius, recognizing as excommunicated anyone who rejected even one of the members he composed. Nestorius rejected entirely everything stated by St. Cyril, and wrote his presentation of the doctrine he preached, also in 12 parts, anathematizing, that is, excommunication from the Church, everyone who does not accept them. The danger for the purity of faith was increasing. St. Cyril wrote letters to Tsar Theodosius the Less, then reigning, his wife Eudokia and sister Pulcheria, asking them to also take care of church affairs and curb heresy. It was decided to convene an Ecumenical Council, at which hierarchs gathered from different parts of the universe would decide whether the faith preached by Nestorius was Orthodox. They chose the city of Ephesus, where the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Apostle John the Theologian once stayed, as the site of the former Third Ecumenical Council. St. Cyril gathered his co-bishops in Egypt and went with them on ships to Ephesus. John, Archbishop of Antioch and the eastern bishops traveled from Antioch by land. Roman Bishop St. Kelestin could not go himself and asked St. Cyril to defend the Orthodox faith, and in addition, he also sent two bishops and the presbyter of the Roman Church, Philip, to whom he also gave instructions on what to say. Nestorius and the bishops of the Constantinople district, the bishops of Palestine, Asia Minor and Cyprus also arrived in Ephesus. In the tenth calendar of July according to Roman reckoning, i.e. On June 22, 431, bishops led by Bishop Cyril of Alexandria and Bishop Memnon of Ephesus gathered in the Ephesian Church of the Virgin Mary and took their places. The Gospel was placed in the middle, as a sign of the invisible headship of the Ecumenical Council by Christ Himself. First, they read the Creed, compiled by the I and II Ecumenical Councils, then the Royal Charter delivered to the Council by the representative of Kings Theodosius and Valentine, the Emperors of the Eastern and Western parts of the Empire. Having listened to the Tsar's letter, they began to read the documents and read the letters of Cyril and Celestine to Nestorius and the answers of Nestorius that preceded the Council. The Council, through the mouth of its members, recognized the teaching of Nestorius as wicked and condemned it, declaring Nestorius deprived of the chair and priesthood. A decree was drawn up on this, signed by about 160 participants of the council, and since some of them represented other bishops who did not have the opportunity to personally come to the council, the decision of the council was the decision of over 200 bishops who had sees in different parts of the then Church, and they testified that they professed the faith that had been held from time immemorial in their places. Thus, the resolution of the Council was the voice of the Universal Church, clearly expressing its belief that Christ, born of the Virgin, is the true God made man, and since Mary gave birth to a perfect man who was at the same time a perfect God, She should rightly be revered as the Mother of God. At the end of the meeting, its resolution was immediately communicated to the waiting people. All Ephesus rejoiced when it learned that the veneration of the Holy Virgin was protected, especially revered in this city, of which She was a resident during her earthly life, and a patroness after her transition to eternal life. The people enthusiastically greeted the Fathers as they returned home in the evening after the meeting, accompanied them to their houses with lighted torches and lit fragrances in the streets. Everywhere one could hear a joyful greeting, glorification of the Ever-Virgin and praise of the Fathers who defended Her name from heretics. The resolution of the Council was posted on the streets of Ephesus. The Council had 5 more meetings: June 10 and 11, July 16, 17 and 22, and August 31. On them, in 6 rules, measures were outlined against those who dare to spread the teachings of Nestorius and reject the decrees of the Council of Ephesus. Based on the complaint of the Cypriot bishops against the claims of the Bishop of Antioch, the Council determined that the Cypriot Church would retain its independence in church government, which it had from the apostles, and in general none of the bishops would subjugate areas that were independent of him before, “so that under the pretext of the priesthood the pride of earthly power does not creep in, and so that we do not lose, little by little, the freedom that He gave us "by the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Liberator of all men." The Council also confirmed the condemnation of the Pelagian heresy, which taught that a person can be saved by his own strength, without the need to have God's grace, resolved some matters of church government and addressed messages to bishops who were not at the Council, proclaiming its decrees and calling on everyone to stand guard over the Orthodox faith and church peace. At the same time, the Council recognized that the teaching of the Orthodox Ecumenical Church is quite fully and clearly set out in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which is why it itself did not compose a new Creed and forbade henceforth “to form a different faith,” that is, to compose other creeds or make changes to the Creed approved at the Second Ecumenical Council. The latter was violated several centuries later by Western Christians, when, first in certain localities, and then throughout the entire Roman Church, the addition was made to the Symbol that the Holy Spirit proceeds “and from the Son,” which addition was approved by the Popes of Rome from the 11th century, although before that time their predecessors, starting with St. Celestine, firmly adhered to the decision of the Ephesian Council, which was the Third Ecumenical Council, and carried it out. Thus peace was established in the Church, disturbed by Nestorius. The true Faith was defended, and false teaching was exposed. The Council of Ephesus is rightly revered as Ecumenical, on a par with the Nicene and Constantinople Councils that preceded it. Representatives of the entire Church were present at it, its decisions were adopted by the entire Church “from end to end of the universe,” and the teaching that was contained by the Church from apostolic times was confessed. The Council did not create a new teaching, but loudly testified to the truth, which they tried to replace with fiction; he accurately stated the confession of the Divinity of Christ, born of the Virgin. The belief of the Church and its judgment on the matter raised were now so clearly expressed that no one could any longer attribute their false ideas to the Church. Other questions could arise in the future that would require a decision by the entire Church, but not about whether Jesus Christ was God. Subsequent Councils based their decisions on the decisions that preceded them, did not create a new Creed and only clarified it. At the Third Ecumenical Council, the teaching of the Church about the Mother of God was firmly and clearly confessed. Previously, the holy fathers denounced those who slandered the immaculate life of the Virgin Mary, but now those who belittled Her honor were proclaimed to everyone: “Whoever does not confess Emmanuel as the true God and therefore the Holy Virgin Theotokos, since She gave birth in the flesh to the Word who is from God the Father made flesh: let him be anathema” (excommunicated from the Church - 1st anathema of St. Cyril of Alexandria). V. Attempts of the iconoclasts to reduce the glory of the Queen of Heaven and their shame After the Third Ecumenical Council, Christians, both in Constantinople and in other places, began to resort even more zealously to the intercession of the Mother of God, and their hopes for Her intercession were not in vain. She showed Her help to numerous sick, helpless and distressed people. She repeatedly appeared as a defender of Constantinople from external enemies, once even showing in a visible image to the Monk Andrey the Fool-for-Christ her wondrous Protection over the people praying at night in the Blachernae Church. The Queen of Heaven gave victory to the Byzantine Kings in battles, which is why they had the custom of taking Her icon of Hodegetria (Guide) with them on campaigns. She strengthened ascetics and zealots of Christian life in their struggle against human passions and weaknesses. She enlightened and instructed the fathers and teachers of the Church, including St. Cyril of Alexandria, when he hesitated to recognize the innocence and holiness of John Chrysostom. The Most Pure Virgin put songs into the mouths of the compilers of church hymns, sometimes making famous singers incapable and without the gift of song, but pious workers, such as St. Roman Sladkopevets. Is it surprising, therefore, that Christians tried to magnify the name of Their eternal Intercessor? Holidays were established in Her honor, wondrous songs were dedicated to Her, Her images were revered. The malice of the “prince of this world” armed the “sons of apostasy” to once again raise their battle against Emmanuel and His Mother in the same Constantinople, which now, like Ephesus before, revered the Mother of God as its Intercessor. Not daring at first to speak openly against the Chosen Voivode, they wanted to reduce Her glorification by prohibiting the veneration of icons of Christ and His saints, calling it idolatry. Here too, the Mother of God strengthened the zealots of piety in the struggle for the veneration of images, revealing many signs from Her icons and healing the severed hand of John of Damascus, who wrote in defense of the icons. The persecution of admirers of icons and saints ended again with the victory and triumph of Orthodoxy, for the reverence given to icons goes back to those depicted on them; the holy saints of God are revered as friends of God, for the sake of the grace of God infused in them according to the words of the psalm, “I was greatly honored by Your friends” (Ps. 139:17). The Most Pure Mother of God is glorified with a special part in heaven and on earth, even in the days of desecration of the holy icons, who through them showed such wondrous miracles that even now we remember them with tenderness. The song “Every creature rejoices in You, O Gracious One,” and the “Three-Handed” icon recall the healing of John of Damascus in front of this icon; The image of the Iveron Icon of the Mother of God is about the miraculous salvation from the enemies of this icon, thrown into the sea by a widow who could not save her. No persecution of those who honor the Mother of God, and nothing connected with the memory of Her, could diminish the love of Christians for their Intercessor. The rule has been established that each series of liturgical songs ends with a song or verse in honor of the Mother of God (the so-called Theotokos). Many times a year, Christians in different parts of the universe gather, as they did before, in the church to praise Her, thank Her for the benefits rendered and ask for mercy. But the adversary of Christians, the devil, who “walks about like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Peter 5:8), how could he remain an indifferent spectator of the glory of the Immaculate? Could he admit himself defeated and stop fighting the truth through people doing his will? And so, when the whole universe was resounding with the gospel of Christ’s faith, when the name of the Most Holy One was invoked everywhere, the earth was filled with churches, Christian houses were decorated with Her icons dedicated to Her, then a new false teaching about the Mother of God appeared and began to spread. This false teaching is all the more dangerous because many cannot immediately understand how much it undermines the true veneration of the Mother of God. VI. “Jealousy is beyond understanding” (Rom. 10:2). Perversion by the Latins in the newly invented dogma of the “Immaculate Conception” of the true veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Ever-Virgin Mary When those who condemned the immaculate life of the Blessed Virgin, those who denied Her Ever-Virginity, those who denied Her dignity as the Mother of God, those who disdained Her icons were exposed - then, when the glory of the Mother of God illuminated the entire universe, then a teaching appeared that seemed to exalt the Virgin Mary highly, but in reality rejected all Her virtues. This doctrine is called the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, and it was accepted by the followers of the Roman papal throne. It is that “The most blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her conception, by the special grace of Almighty God and the special advantage, for the sake of the future merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all defilement of original guilt” (Pope Pius IX's Bull on the New Dogma). In other words, the Mother of God at her very conception was preserved from original sin and by the grace of God she was made impossible to have personal sins. Christians did not hear about this until the 9th century, when for the first time the Abbot of Corvey, Paschasius Radbert, expressed the opinion that the Holy Virgin was conceived without original sin. Starting from the 12th century, this idea began to spread among the clergy and flock of the Western Church, which had already fallen away from the Universal Church, and thus lost the grace of the Holy Spirit. However, not all members of the Roman Church agreed with the new teaching. Even the famous theologians of the West, the pillars of the Latin Church, so to speak, were divided in their opinions. Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux strongly condemned him, while Duns Scotus defended him. From the teachers, the division passed to their students: the Latin Dominican monks, following their teacher Thomas Aquinas, preached against the doctrine of the immaculate conception, and the followers of Duns Scotus, the Franciscans, tried to implant it everywhere. The struggle between these two movements continued for several centuries. On both sides there were individuals who were considered the greatest authorities among Catholics. It did not help to resolve the issue that some reported that they had a revelation about this from above. The nun Brigitte, famous in the 14th century among Catholics, spoke in her notes about the appearance of the Mother of God to her, who Herself told her that She was conceived immaculately, without original sin; and the even more famous contemporary ascetic Catherine of Siena argued that at conception the Holy Virgin was involved in original sin, but she receives revelations from Christ Himself (Arch. Al. Lebedev. Differences in the teaching of the Most Holy Theotokos of the Eastern and Western Churches). Thus, neither on the basis of theological writings, nor on the basis of miraculous phenomena, mutually contradictory, the Latin flock could not figure out for a long time where the truth was. The Roman popes until Sixtus IV (late 15th century) remained aloof from these disputes, only this pope in 1475 approved a service in which the doctrine of the virgin birth was clearly expressed, and a few years later he forbade the condemnation of those who believe in the virgin birth. However, Sixtus IV did not yet dare to assert that this is the unshakable teaching of the Church, which is why, while forbidding the condemnation of those who believe in the virgin birth, he did not condemn those who believe differently. Meanwhile, the doctrine of the virgin birth was gaining more and more supporters among members of the Roman Catholic Church. The reason for this was that it seemed very pious and pleasing to the Mother of God to give Her as much glory as possible. The desire of the people to glorify the Heavenly Intercessor, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the deviation of Western theologians into abstract reasoning leading to only apparent truth (scholasticism), and finally, the patronage of the popes after Sixtus IV - all this led to the fact that the opinion about the virgin birth, expressed by Paschasius Radbert in the 9th century, was already the general belief of the Latin Church in the 19th century. All that remained was to finally proclaim this as church teaching, which is what Pope Pius IX did, during a solemn service on December 8, 1854, declaring that the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin is a dogma of the Roman Church. Thus, the Roman Church added one more deviation from the teaching that it professed while it was a member of the Catholic Apostolic Church, which faith the Orthodox Church maintains inviolably and without change to this day. The proclamation of the new dogma satisfied wide circles of the people belonging to the Roman Church, who in the simplicity of their hearts thought that the proclamation of the new teaching in the Church would serve to the greater glory of the Mother of God, to whom they were, as it were, making a gift; the ambition of Western theologians who defended and developed it was satisfied; and most of all, the proclamation of the new dogma benefited the Roman throne itself, since, having proclaimed the new dogma with his authority, although he had listened to the opinions of the bishops of the Catholic Church, the Pope of Rome thereby openly arrogated to himself the right to change the teaching of the Roman Church and placed his voice above the testimony of Holy Scripture and Tradition. From here the direct conclusion was that Roman popes are infallible in matters of faith, which the same Pope Pius IX also proclaimed as a dogma of the Catholic Church in 1870. This is how the teaching of the Western Church changed, falling away from communion with the true Church. She introduces new and new teachings, thinking the more to glorify the truth, but in reality distorting it. While the Orthodox Church humbly confesses what it has received from Christ and the apostles, the Roman Church dares to supplement it, sometimes out of “zeal... not according to reason” (Rom. 10:2), sometimes “deviating... into the vain talk and contradictions of a false mind” (1 Tim. 6:20). It couldn't be otherwise; that “the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church,” (Matthew 16:18), is promised only to the true, Universal Church, and the words come true for those who have fallen away from it: “Just as the rod cannot produce fruit for itself unless it is on the vine; so also are you, unless you abide in Me” (John 15:4). Interpreters of the Latin religion also say that the Virgin Mary was saved by Christ, but they understand this to mean that Mary was protected from the taint of original guilt in view of Christ’s future merits (Bulle on the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception). The Virgin Mary, according to their teaching, seemed to henceforth receive the gift that Christ brought to people through His suffering and death on the cross. More than that. Speaking about the torments of the Mother of God that She endured while standing at the cross of Her beloved Son, and in general about those sorrows that filled the life of the Mother of God, they consider them an addition to the sufferings of Christ, and Mary as our Co-Redemptrix. According to the interpretation of Latin theologians, “Mary is associated with our Redeemer, as a Co-Redemptrix” (See: Lebedev. Ibid., p. 273) “In matters of redemption She in some way helped Christ” (Catechism of Dr. Weimar). “The Mother of God,” writes Dr. Lenz, “not only bore the burden of Her martyrdom courageously, but also with joy, although with a broken heart” (Dr. Lenz’s Mariology). For this reason, She is the “complement of the Holy One.” Trinity,” and “just as Her Son is the only Mediator chosen by God between His offended majesty and human sinners, so exactly the main Mediator placed by Him between the Son and us is the Most Blessed Virgin.” “By three relations: Daughter, Mother and Spouse of God, the Holy Virgin is elevated to a certain equality with the Father, to a certain superiority over the Son, to a certain closeness to the Holy Spirit” (“Immaculate Conception.” Malu, Bishop Bruges). Thus, according to the teachings of representatives of Latin theology, the Virgin Mary in the work of redemption stands next to Christ Himself and rises almost to equality with God. There is nowhere to go further. If all this has not yet been finalized as a dogma of the Roman Church, then Pope Pius IX, having taken the first step in this regard, indicated the direction for the further development of the generally accepted doctrine of his church, indirectly confirming the above teaching about the Virgin Mary. Thus, the Roman Church, in its desire to exalt the Blessed Virgin, follows the path of complete deification of Her, and if now its authorities call Mary the addition of the Holy Trinity, then soon we can expect that the Virgin will be revered as God. A group of thinkers who still belong to the Orthodox Church, but who are building a new theological system, basing it on the philosophical teaching of the Wisdom of Sophia, as a special force connecting the Divine and creation, took the same path. Also developing the doctrine of the dignity of the Mother of God, they want to see in Her a being who is something between God and man. On some issues they are more moderate than the Latin theologians, but on others, perhaps, they are already ahead of them. Denying the doctrine of the virgin birth and freedom from original sin, they, however, teach about Her complete freedom from all personal sins, seeing in Her a mediator between people and God, similar to Christ: in the person of Christ the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Eternal Word, the Son of God appeared on earth, and the Holy Spirit appears through the Virgin Mary. But we can say in the words of St. Epiphanius of Cyprus: “there is the same harm in both of these heresies, both when they humiliate the Virgin, and when, on the contrary, they glorify Her beyond what is due” (St. Epiphanius of Cyprus. Panarion, against Collaridians). The Holy Father denounces those who render Her almost Divine worship: “Let Mary be honoured, let the Lord be worshiped” (Ibid.). “Although Mary is a chosen vessel, a woman by nature is no different from others. Although the history of Mary and Tradition reports that it was said to her father Joachim in the desert: “your wife has conceived,” this did not happen without the union of marriage and not without the seed of a husband” (St. Epiphanius of Cyprus. Against Collaridians). “One should not honor the saints beyond what is due, but honor their Lord. Mary is not God and did not receive a body from heaven, but from the copulation of husband and wife, and according to the promise, like Isaac, she was prepared to participate in the economy of God. But, on the other hand, let no one dare to insanely insult the Holy Virgin.” (St. Epiphanius. Against the Anti-Dicomarionites). The same holy father teaches about the universality of original sin, to which Christ is the only exception. “Of all those born of women, there is not a single one who is completely holy, except the Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to the special new image of the virgin birth, did not experience earthly corruption.” (St. Ambrose. In Luc., sar. II). “There is only God without sin. As a rule, all those born from a wife and a husband, that is, from a carnal union, are guilty of sin. Therefore, he who has no sin was not conceived in this way.” (St. Ambrose. Ar. Aug. de nupcia et concepcione). “Only man, the Intercessor of God and men, is free from the bonds of sinful birth, because He was born of the Virgin and because at birth He did not experience the attack of sin.” (St. Ambrose. Against Julian, book 2). Another famous teacher of the Church, especially revered in the West, Blessed Augustine writes: “As for other people, excluding Him who is the cornerstone, I do not see any other way for them to become churches of God and to be a dwelling place for God other than spiritual rebirth, which must necessarily be preceded by carnal birth. Thus, no matter how we think about children in the womb, at least the word of the Holy Evangelist, who says about John the Baptist that he leaped with joy in his mother’s womb (which happened only through the action of the Holy Spirit), or the words of the Lord Himself spoken to Jeremiah: “I sanctified you before you came out of your mother’s womb” (Jer 1:5) - gave or did not give us reason to think that children in this state are capable of some sanctification; but in any case, it is certain that that sanctification, by which we all together and each one in particular become the church of God, is possible only for the regenerated, and that rebirth always presupposes birth. “I am horrified to see that now some of you want to change the state of important things, introducing a new festival, unknown to the Church, disapproved by reason, unjustified by ancient Tradition. Are we really more knowledgeable and more pious than our fathers?.. You say, we should glorify the Mother of the Lord as much as possible. This is true; but the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven requires discernment. This royal Virgin has no need for false glorification, possessing true crowns of glory and signs of dignity. Celebrate the purity of Her flesh and the holiness of Her life. Be amazed at the abundance of this Virgin’s gifts; worship Her Divine Son; exalt the One who conceived without knowing lust and gave birth without knowing sickness. What else needs to be added to these advantages? They say that we must honor the conception which preceded the glorious birth; for if conception had not preceded it, then birth would not have been glorified. But what can we say if someone, for the same reason, demanded the same honoring of the father and mother of St. Mary. “I say that the Virgin Mary could not have been sanctified before Her conception, since she did not exist; if, all the more, She could not have been sanctified at the moment of Her conception, due to sin with the inseparable conception, then we can only believe that She was sanctified after She was conceived in the womb of Her mother. This sanctification, if it destroys sin, makes Her birth holy, but not Her conception. No one is given the right to be conceived in holiness. The Lord Christ alone was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and He alone is holy from His very conception. Excluding Him, what applies to all the descendants of Adam is that one of them says about himself, both from a sense of humility and from an awareness of the truth: “For I was conceived in iniquity” (Ps. 50:7). How can one demand that this conception be holy when it was not the work of the Holy Spirit, not to mention that it came from lust? The Holy Virgin will, of course, reject that glory which, apparently, glorifies sin; It will in no way justify the novelty invented contrary to the teaching of the Church, novelty, which is the mother of imprudence, the sister of unbelief and the daughter of frivolity” (Bernard. Epist. CLXXIV. Quoted, like the previous one (from St. Augustine), from Lebedev. Differences in the teaching about the Most Holy Theotokos of the Eastern and Western Churches). The above words clearly reveal both the novelty and the absurdity of the new dogma of the Roman Church. Teaching about the complete sinlessness of the Mother of God: 1) Does not correspond to the Holy Scripture, which repeatedly speaks of the sinlessness of “the only Advocate of God and men, the man Jesus Christ” (1 Tim. 2:5), “and in Him is no sin”, “thou shalt not commit sin, lest flattery be found in His mouth”, “tempted in every way, in the likeness of sin”, “for he who knew no sin made sin for us” ( 1 John 3:5; 1 Pet. 2:22; 2 Cor. 5:21), but about other people it is said: “Who is clean from filth?” No one, even if he lived only one day on earth” (Job 14:4–5). “God makes his love for us, since Christ died for us while we were still sinners... If we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we will be saved in His life” (Rom. 5:8–10). 2) This teaching also contradicts the Holy Tradition, contained in numerous patristic works, which speak of the high holiness of the Virgin Mary from Her very birth and of Her cleansing by the Holy Spirit at Her conception of Christ, but not at Her own conception by Anna. “Not one is pure before You from filth, even if there is only one day of his life, unless You are the only one who appeared on earth, our sinless Lord Jesus Christ. In whom we all hope to receive mercy and remission of sins,” says Basil the Great (Prayer of Vespers of Pentecost). “But when Christ came through a pure, virgin, unmarried, God-fearing, undefiled Mother without marriage and without a father, and since He had to be born, he purified the female nature, rejected the bitter Eve and rejected the carnal laws,” adds St. Gregory the Theologian (Praise of Virginity). However, even then, as Saints Basil the Great and John Chrysostom speak about this, She was not made unable to sin, but continued to care about Her salvation and conquered all temptations (St. John Chrysostom. Commentary on the Gospel of John, conversation 85; St. Basil the Great. Epist:. CLX). 3) The teaching that the Mother of God was purified before birth, so that the Pure Christ could be born from Her, is meaningless, since if the Pure Christ could only be born if the Virgin was purified while still in the womb of her parents, then in order for the Virgin to be born pure, it would be necessary for Her parents to be pure from original sin, and they again would have to be born from purified parents, and so on, one would have to come to the conclusion, that Christ could not have been incarnate if all His ancestors according to the flesh, up to and including Adam, had not previously been cleansed from original sin; but then there would no longer be a need for the very incarnation of Christ, since Christ descended to earth to destroy sin. 4) The teaching that the Mother of God was preserved from original sin, as well as the fact that She was preserved from personal sins by the grace of God, represents God as unmerciful and unrighteous, since if God could save Mary from sin and cleanse her even before birth, then why does He not cleanse other people before birth, but leaves them in sin; It also turns out that God saves people even against their will, even before birth, predestining some to salvation. 5) This teaching, apparently aimed at exalting the Mother of God, in fact completely denies all Her virtues. After all, if Mary, while still in her mother’s womb, when she could not yet wish for anything good or evil, was preserved by the grace of God from all uncleanness, then by that grace she was preserved from sin even after birth, then what is Her merit? If She was placed in the impossibility of sinning and did not sin, then why did God glorify Her? If She remained pure without any effort or without any incentive to sin, then why was She crowned above all others? There is no victory without an enemy. This is where the righteousness and holiness of the Virgin Mary was manifested, that She, being “a man servile to us,” so loved God and surrendered to Him that with Her purity she rose highly above the rest of the human race. For this reason, foreordained and pre-chosen, She was worthy that by the Holy Spirit that came upon Her, She was purified and conceived from Him the Savior of the world. The teaching about the grace-filled sinlessness of the Virgin Mary denies Her victory over temptations and, instead of a victor who deserves to be crowned with crowns of glory, makes Her a blind instrument of God’s Providence. Not exaltation and great glory, but Her humiliation is represented by the “gift” that Pope Pius IX and everyone else gave Her, who think that they can glorify the Mother of God by finding new truths. The Most Holy Mary is so glorified by God Himself, so exalted by Her life on earth and Her glory in heaven, that human inventions cannot add anything to Her honor and glory. What people themselves invent only obscures Her face from their eyes. “Brethren, take heed, lest anyone deceive you with philosophy and vain flattery, according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ,” wrote the Apostle Paul by the Holy Spirit (Col. 2:8). This kind of “vain flattery” is the doctrine of Anna’s immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, which at first glance elevates, but in fact humiliates Her. Like any lie, it is the seed of the “father of lies” (John 8:44) the devil, who managed to deceive many who do not understand that they are blaspheming the Virgin Mary. Together with them, all other teachings arising from it or akin to it must be rejected. The desire to elevate the Blessed Virgin to equality with Christ, giving Her maternal suffering at the cross equal significance with the suffering of Christ, so that the Redeemer and the “Co-redeemer” suffered equally, according to the teachings of the papists, or “that the human being of the Mother of God in heaven together with the God-man Jesus together reveals the complete image of man” (Prot. S. Bulgakov. The Burning Bush, p. 141), according to the teaching of the false Sophians (Sophia means Wisdom), there is equally vain flattery and seduction by philosophy. About Christ Jesus “he is neither male nor female” (Gal. 3:28), and Christ redeemed the entire human race, which is why “Adam rejoiced and Eve rejoiced” equally at His Resurrection (Sunday Kontakia 1st and 3rd Tone), and with His Ascension the Lord exalted all human nature. Also, that the Mother of God is the “supplement of the Holy Trinity” or the “fourth hypostasis” or “the Son and Mother reveal the revelation of the Father through the Second and Third Hypostasis”, that the Virgin Mary is “a creature, but no longer a creature” - all this is the fruit of false thinking, not satisfied with what the Church has contained since Apostolic times and trying to glorify the Holy Virgin more than God glorified Her. The words of St. come true. Epiphanius of Cyprus: “Some who are mad in their opinion of the Holy Ever-Virgin herself have tried and are trying to put Her in place of God” (St. Epiphanius. Against the Anti-Dicomarionites, heresy 78). But in madness, what is offered to the Virgin, instead of praising Her, turns out to be blasphemy, and the Immaculate One rejects lies, being the Mother of Truth (John 14:6). VII. Orthodox veneration of the Mother of God The Orthodox Church contains about the Mother of God what Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture have reported about Her, and glorifies Her daily in its churches, asking Her for help and protection. Knowing that She was pleased only with those praises that corresponded to Her actual glory, the holy fathers and hymnals of Herself and Her Son prayed to instruct them in how to sing Her: “Guard my thoughts, O my Christ, for I dare to praise Your Pure Mother” (Ikos of the Dormition). “The Church teaches that Christ was truly born of the Ever-Virgin Mary” (St. Epiphanius of Cyprus. The True Word about Faith). “We need to confess that the Holy Ever-Virgin Mary is truly the Mother of God, so as not to fall into blasphemy. For those who deny that the Holy Virgin really is the Mother of God are no longer the faithful, but disciples of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (Venerable Ephraim the Syrian. To Monk John). From Tradition it is known that Mary was the daughter of the elderly Joachim and Anna, moreover, Joachim came from the royal family of David, and Anna from the priestly family. Despite such noble origins, they were poor. However, this was not what saddened these righteous people, but the fact that they did not have children and could not hope that their descendant would see the Messiah. And so, when one day, despised by the Jews for their infertility, they both offered up prayers to God in the sorrow of their souls, Joachim on the mountain, where he retired after the priest did not want to make his sacrifice in the church, and Anna in her garden, mourning her infertility, then an Angel appeared to them and told them that they would give birth to a daughter. Delighted, they promised to dedicate their child to God. “Despite the righteousness and integrity of the life that the Mother of God led, sin and eternal death manifested their presence in Her. They could not help but manifest themselves: this is the exact and true teaching of the Orthodox Church about the Mother of God in relation to original sin and death” (Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov. Exposition of the teaching of the Orthodox Church about the Mother of God). “Alien to the fall of sin” (St. Ambrose of Milan. Interpretation of Ps. 118). She was no stranger to sinful temptations. “After all, there is only God without sin” (St. Ambrose of Milan. Ibid.), and a person will always have in himself what still needs to be corrected and improved in order to fulfill God’s commandment: “Be holy, for I am holy, the Lord your God” (Lev. 19:2). The purer and more perfect someone is, the more he notices his imperfections and the more unworthy he considers himself. The Virgin Mary, who gave herself entirely to God, although she repelled from herself every inclination toward sin, felt the weakness of human nature more than others and ardently desired the coming of the Savior. She, in humility, considered herself unworthy to be a servant of the Virgin who had Him to give birth to. So that nothing would distract Her from prayer and attention to Herself, Mary made a vow of celibacy to God, so that throughout Her life she would please only Him. Betrothed to Elder Joseph, when Her years did not allow Her to remain at the church any longer, She settled in his house in Nazareth. Here the Virgin was honored with the arrival of the Archangel Gabriel, who announced to Her the birth of the Most High from Her. “Rejoice, full of grace: the Lord is with you. Blessed are You among women... The Holy Spirit will come upon You and the power of the Most High will overshadow You; In the same way, the Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:28–35). Mary did not tell anyone about the appearance of the Angel, but the Angel himself announced to Joseph about Mary’s miraculous conception from the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18–25), and after the birth of Christ, with the multitude of the heavenly army, he announced it to the shepherds. The shepherds, coming to worship the Newborn, said that they had heard about Him. Having previously silently endured suspicion, Mary now silently listened and “formed in Her heart” words about the greatness of Her Son (Luke 2:8–19). After 40 days, She heard Simeon’s prayer of praise and a prediction about a weapon that would pass through Her soul. Afterwards I saw how Jesus advanced in wisdom, heard Him at the age of 12 teaching in the church and “kept everything... in His heart” (Luke 2:21-51). Although grace-filled, She did not yet fully understand what the ministry and greatness of Her Son would consist of. Jewish concepts about the Messiah were still close to Her, and natural feelings forced Her to take care of Him, protecting Him from what might seem to be excessive work and dangers. Therefore, She unwittingly first stood in the way of Her Son, which prompted His instruction about the superiority of spiritual kinship over physical kinship (Matthew 12:46–49). “He cared about the honor of the Mother, but much more about Her spiritual salvation and the good of people, for which he took on the flesh” (John Chrysostom. Commentary on the Gospel of John, conversation 12). Mary understood this and, “hearing the speech of God, preserved it” (Luke 11:27–28). Like no other person, She had the same feelings as Christ (Phil. 2:5), resignedly enduring maternal grief when she saw Her Son persecuted and suffering. Rejoicing on the day of the Resurrection, She was clothed with power from on high on the day of Pentecost (Luke 24:49). The Holy Spirit who descended on Her “taught her everything” (John 14:26), and “guided her into all truth” (John 16:13). Having experienced all the hardships of earthly life, the Intercessor of the Christian race sees every tear, hears every groan and prayer addressed to Her. Those who work in the fight against passions and are zealous for a godly life are especially close to Her. But even in everyday matters, She is an irreplaceable helper. “To all the sorrowing Joy, and the offended Intercessor, and the hungry Nourisher, the strange Consolation, the overwhelmed Refuge, the sick Visitation, the weak Protection and Intercessor, the Rod of old age, the Mother of the Most Pure God, You art the Most Pure” (Stichera of the Hodegetria). “Hope, and intercession, and refuge of Christians,” in “the never-ceasing prayers of the Mother of God” (Kontakion of the Dormition), “saving the world with Her unceasing prayer” (Theotokos, 3rd tone), “day and night she prays for us and the sceptres of the Kingdom are confirmed by Her prayers” (Daily Midnight Office). There is no mind or words to express the greatness of the One who was born in the sinful human race, but became the Most Honest Cherub and the most glorious Seraphim. “The inexpressible God and Divine mysteries in vain in the Virgin, the grace manifested and fulfilled clearly, I rejoice and understand the image, strange and ineffable, how the chosen Pure One appeared above all creation, visible and intelligible. Even if I praise this, I am greatly horrified, but in my mind and in word, even daring, I preach and magnify: This is the village of heaven” (Ikos of the Entry into the Church). “Every tongue is perplexed to praise according to its inheritance, but the mind and the worldly one are amazed to sing to Thee, Mother of God, and otherwise, Good Being, accept faith, for our Divine love weighs: For Thou art the Representative of Christians, we magnify Thee” (Irmos of the 9th canticle of Epiphany). Hieromonk John (Maksimovich), monk of the Milkovo monastery of the Entry of the Most Holy Theotokos into the Church. Yugoslavia, 1928 You might be interested in: