Cross of Our Lady

(From reflections of Holy Week) Anyone who devotes his mind and heart to reading the Holy Gospel cannot help but be struck by the paucity of information about the Mother of God that it contains. This poverty is directly opposed to the richness of the liturgical and also iconographic data that the Church has for praising the Mother of God. This discrepancy prompts many in the Protestant world to completely deny the originality of the veneration of the Mother of God in the Church, which is therefore recognized as a later addition and clouding of the purity of the Gospel. This fact, in any case, is so striking that it requires deliberate interpretation. How could it be that the Mother of Christ focuses even less attention on Her among the evangelists than some other evangelical figures: the Forerunner, the apostles, not only Peter and John, but even Judas, as well as others? This seems incongruous and incomprehensible even from the point of view of the completeness of the Gospel narrative, in which, it would seem, the Mother of Christ should have been given appropriate attention simply because of Her special relationship to the Son. However, this is not the case, and it is as if this paucity of information about the Mother of God is not accidental, but deliberate, who remains in deep shadow, emerging from it only in brief and exceptional moments, as if reluctantly yielding to necessity, and, however, all these exceptions are marked by special features (the latter will be indicated below). The explanation for this amazing fact must be sought in some kind of prohibition of silence imposed by the humility of the Servant of the Lord. The Lord looked upon Her humility, so that, although according to Her own word, all generations will please Her, however, this is, as it were, contrary to Her own will. Her humility is hidden in this Gospel silence: with a loving and believing heart, and not with a calculating and cold mind, it is necessary to comprehend the mystery of the Mother of God. But the Church, as if in response to this Gospel silence, unfolds the fabric of its art in the glorification of the Mother of God, persistent, diverse and continuous, inseparable from the glorification of Christ himself. But what attracts our attention even more powerfully is what is told to us about the Mother of the Lord in the Gospel, and not only with direct verbs, but - and what is no less important - with its silence, which sometimes speaks with a thunderous voice, powerfully forcing us to listen. In the little that is positively reported in the Gospel, one is struck by a certain selection of information and the general character of this narrative. It is its content that is directly or indirectly dedicated to one main theme: the Cross of the Mother of God. All this information in general contains evidence of the godliness of Her election and Her path, even when they - as an exception - speak of the glory of the Holy One. Mother of God. This is, first of all, the story of the Evangelist Luke about the Annunciation, in which the gospel of the Archangel is accepted through the submission of the Servant of the Lord to the will of the Most High. By this will of Her fate they are taken away from the ordinary course of human life, for they are determined by the ministry of the One who has to be born of Her for redemption on the cross. And if the greeting is right. Elizabeth and in the hymn of the Mother of God we have Her exaltation, this is immediately followed by a prophecy by the Holy Spirit of the righteous Simeon about a weapon that has to pierce Her heart. What follows is a story about the first lesson of the Mother of God, taught to Her by the Divine Child Son, when He, found by her parents in the church, as if putting aside the feelings of Her “great” sorrow, commanded them to subordinate them to His higher service: “Why did you look for Me? Or did you not know that I should be in what belongs to My Father?” (Luke 2:48). And this same call for human self-denial, for maternal self-crucifixion, also sounds in the word of the Son, preserved by all three Synoptics, in the story about the only case when the Mother meets the Son during His ministry: Matt. 12, 46–50. Mk. 3, 31–35. OK. 8, 19–21. “His mother and brothers” wanted to speak to Him, obviously on the basis of earthly kinship, which He had already abandoned in the name of spiritual kinship: “Who are My mother and My brothers? And pointing His hand to His disciples, He said: Behold My mother and My brothers.” A weapon was again pierced into the mother’s heart. She was once again called to self-denial on the cross. And this story, which even instills pain in our weak heart, is all that the synoptic evangelists have to tell us about the life of the Mother of God during the years of Christ’s earthly ministry. The narrative of the Nativity of Christ by the evangelists Matthew and Luke also contains features of the glory of the cross. Of course, the Birth of the God-Man, glorified by angels from heaven and eastern sages from men, was an ineffable and incomprehensible glory and joy for the Mother of God. However, this glory and joy were also godparents. Not to mention the external wretchedness and poverty of birth in a cattle cave on a winter night, in general, all this external humiliation of the Son, Whom the angels sang in heaven, echoed with suffering in the Mother’s heart. But She also had to go through deliberate humiliation from the righteous Joseph, who remained unknown to the glory of the election of the Mother of God on the cross. Seeing Her “not idle,” he wanted to let Her go as if she had violated marital fidelity, Her, the most honest cherub of the Ever-Virgin. And only a divine sign through an angel who appeared to Joseph in a dream stopped him from doing this. What follows is the madness of Herod’s persecution, the brutal killing of infants with the aim of killing the Divine Infant among them, the flight to Egypt - this is what marks the Nativity of Christ for the Mother of God, which is not in vain in the rite of proskomedia and in the services of the forefeast of R. Chr. so persistently approaches the Gethsemane and Calvary exhaustion. This is all that is told to us about the life of St. Mother of God from the weather forecasters. Not enough, isn't it? Yes, it’s not enough, and the little that is told is not about glory, not about joy, but about the cross. And in accordance with this, we must conclude that in the further silence of the evangelists the same sorrow on the cross resounds: the Mother of God sees and comprehends what Her Son is doomed to do in His service, where He is going, and what will be His end. This is also evidenced by all those events that unfold before us in the Gospel narrative about how the gap deepened between the leaders and teachers of the people and Jesus, how the hatred and bitterness of enemies grew, with cowardice, misunderstanding and betrayal of those around. All this - we must remember and know this - was experienced in the heart of the Mother of God, who, not in ignorance, contemplated the feat of the ministry of Her Son. All the Gospel accomplishments take place in the heart of the Mother of God; She shares with the Son His every sorrow, every step of His on the path to Calvary. She knows everything, is present everywhere with her heart, without appearing before our eyes, she suffers invisibly. Is it really true that we, although taught by the Gospel, are more aware of Her about the life of Her Son, know more than She and have compassion for Him? Or did She remain in calm ignorance after the departure of the Son from the silence of Nazareth, and She is no longer with Him in everything that He does? Or did the Mother separate from the Son, and that connection of love, care, self-sacrifice, which is inherent not only in human motherhood, but even in animals, was completely abolished here, giving way, as stupid blasphemers think, to new family responsibilities and connections, new joys with the oblivion of the former? Oh, human unreason, oh, blindness of minds and petrification of hearts! On the contrary, one must keep in mind as an axiom regarding the Gospel silence: everywhere and always and in everything that is done with the Son, or He Himself does, together with Him, openly or secretly, the Mother of God is present, and there is nothing in the Gospel that was not seen and experienced by Her, and to which She did not respond with Her heart. And every step in Her Son’s way of the cross is also Her own step with Him and behind Him. That is why for us, after this silence about the Mother of God throughout the entire Gospel, such dazzling evidence is so obvious and in its laconic brevity the eloquent testimony of the Evangelist John (19:25) that His Mother stood at the cross with her wives. Where did She come from at the cross? Did she come from quiet oblivion, or from a new family comfort in Nazareth? No, She came for Him and with Him, because She never left Him, and even when She did not have His permission, or did not allow herself to be with Him, apparently being present near Him. Now Her time has come, and She took Her place at the Cross to be crucified with Him. 1 Only the beloved disciple testifies to this, but the weather forecasters are silent when they talk about the presence of other women at the Cross and the Tomb. So, did they, these women, turn out to be more faithful, or loved the Lord more than She, the Mother of God, the Unbrided Bride? Is it possible that when these women remembered this, and, exhausted from grief, prepared spices so that they would come to anoint the body of Jesus, only Mary was absent, being busy with others and others? So, we must learn with our hearts to see and hear the presence of the Mother of God near the Son (and also after His Ascension in the Apostolic Church), as a kind of tender mystery. And more than that, we must distinguish between different images and meaning, and strength, and significance of Her presence as well as Her absence. Deprived of the opportunity to make this distinction throughout the entire Gospel narrative, we must dwell on several events, the most grandiose in strength and significance, in which, apparently, Mother of God, to ask yourself about the power and meaning of this absence of Her. And, above all, the Baptism of the Lord. According to the Gospel of Luke, during a trip to Jerusalem, the Virgin Mother was given, as it were, an educational opportunity to experience the maternal grief of the loss of Her Son, who was lost along the way - (“they sought You with great sorrow”), and to find Him in the church. After this, the curtain falls over His adolescence, and it only says: “He went with them and came to Nazareth, and was in subjection to them” (Luke 2:51). And then it says directly and briefly: “And it came to pass in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan” (Mk. 1:9; Matt. 3:13). This entry of Jesus into public service was, of course, an abandonment of the Mother, who, of course, knew, could not help but know the meaning and power of this, no longer just a short-term, but the last, final loss of His Son, for His path lay from the Jordan to Calvary. Whether She followed Him and with Him, or whether she watched Him from afar with a loving gaze, remaining herself in Nazareth, in the upper room where the Annunciation of the Archangel Gabriel took place, is hidden from us. The only mention of the presence of the Mother of God in this regard, unlike other evangelists, we have in the Gospel of John, where it is said, after the story of the miracle in Cana of Galilee and in connection with it: “After this He came to Capernaum, Himself and His Mother, and His brothers and His disciples, and they stayed there a few days” (John 2:12). And that's all. This indication testifies to us that the presence of the Mother of God surrounded by the Lord was possible, at least it was not completely excluded, as can be concluded based on the story of the synoptic evangelists about the coming of the Mother and His brothers to Jesus. However, we do not know to what extent it was actually possible, and the complete silence about it among all the evangelists, except for the exceptional cases mentioned, rather suggests that the Mother of God was not near Jesus at all. Yes, it doesn't matter. The only important thing is that the meaning of what was happening could not be hidden from Her. Those around John could hear his word when he saw Jesus approaching him: “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (1, 29, 36), applying to Him the prophecy of the 53rd chapter of Isaiah, this Old Testament Gospel about the passion of the Lord. So, did this word of the Forerunner really not reach Her ears? Oh, She herself knew this prophecy well, for she already accepted it in her heart when she said: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord” (according to legend, it was while reading the prophet Isaiah that the Annunciation overtook Her). And now the time has come for its beginning to be accomplished. The “weapon in the heart” went deeper, the inevitably approaching one approached, although still in anticipation. This very prophecy, but applied to Herself, She heard from the lips of the righteous Simeon at the Meeting of the Lord. But, if She was given the gift of compassion for the Son, why was She removed from presence at the opening of the heavens and participation in the mystery of the Epiphany? Why did Her Son separate from Her in this too and go His own way? Is it only in order to make the cross of the Mother of God even heavier, to test the humility and patience of the Servant of the Lord? Or can we assume that there was an internal need for this detachment, a compulsion for this absence? Entering into public service, as complete devotion to the will of the Father, Who responds to it by sending the Holy Spirit, by the new adoption of the God-Man (“This is My beloved Son”), was the personal work of Christ, which no one, not even the Most Pure One, could share with Him. On the other hand, the descent of the Holy Spirit, the personal Pentecost of Christ, which appeared at the same time as the basis of the future general Baptism, the consecration of the waters of the Jordan, was, in one sense, unnecessary for the Mother of God, and in another it was still impossible. The first is because She already had Her personal Pentecost at the Annunciation, when the Holy One descended on Her. Spirit (according to iconography, also in the form of a dove, as at the baptism of Christ), and She personally was already completely sanctified and blessed (“Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with You, blessed are You among women”). The second is because She still had, together with all humanity and the whole world, to receive the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, which for Her meant “salvation,” that is, the abolition of the power of original sin in all creation and in Her, as its personal focus. The Mother of God was present in the Upper Room of Zion on the day of the descent of the Holy Spirit and received His fiery tongue for Herself and on behalf of all creation: as a rare exception, Her name is mentioned among those present - (the only time in the entire book of the Acts of the Apostles). This was baptism for Her and for all creation with the Holy Spirit and fire. 2 It was accomplished by the power of the sending of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son, after He, through His redemptive feat, glorified and gave immortality to the entire human race. From what has been said, it follows that the Mother of God could not participate in the Baptism of the Lord, but at the same time She could not help but contemplate its saving significance and remain ignorant of the power of this event. If we ask: how and from where? - then, not knowing the human and generally external ways of this knowledge, we can, in response to this, indicate its internal source: it was the Holy Spirit himself, who rested on Her. But it is remarkable that the Church is silent here before the lowered veil. The service of the Feast of Epiphany seems to forget about the Most Holy Theotokos. Apart from the usual references to the Mother of God in accordance with the general liturgical charter (see, for example, in the 9th song of the canon), the name of the Mother of God does not appear at all in the context of the celebrated event. And it remains for us to understand again this very silence, which, of course, cannot mean oblivion of what is unforgettable. The next gospel event that attracts our attention here is the Transfiguration of the Lord. It is, on the one hand, a precursor to the Glory that is acquired by the feat of the cross, and on the other, a real precursor to this latter: Moses and Elijah talk to the Lord about “His exodus to Jerusalem,” and from that time He himself begins to definitely prepare His disciples for His death on the cross. The path from Tabor leads directly to Golgotha, although the three chosen disciples of Christ, who were present at the Transfiguration and who had seen the Light of Tabor, could not yet understand this. But where is the Mother of God here? She does not exist, and there seems to be no memory of Her either among the evangelists or in the service of the Transfiguration, where even Her name does not appear (again, except for the usual mention in the irmos of the 9th song of the canon). And again a perplexed question arises: where is She, did She know about what had happened, about what the human eye of the apostles saw, what the earth and the sun and all nature saw? Yes, she knew, for she could not help but know - She, the Mother of God herself, had the Holy Spirit resting on Her. But she, the Crusader, was not given the opportunity to experience that bliss that so stunned the apostles, even if only through earthly charm (“it’s good to be here, so let’s build three tabernacles”). But She could not remain unknown that this was, like Baptism, the beginning of the Son’s way of the cross. And further, we ask ourselves: did She need to accept the Transfiguration, to accommodate its power, which the disciples did not contain, although they recognized it? It was not necessary for Her in the sense in which, according to the Church’s explanation, it could have been necessary for the latter: “Thy disciples saw Thy Glory, O Christ God, so that when they see Thee crucified, they will understand free suffering.” And on the other hand, it was obviously premature for Her, for She had to go to the end of Her path to Glory, the path of the cross, leading through Golgotha ​​to the gates of death and Her glorious Dormition. Her glory is the glory of the world, Her transfiguration in the Assumption already carries within itself the power of universal transformation. Her Assumption contains and fulfills the power of the Transfiguration of Christ, which will be revealed to Her in the fullness of time. However, before this accomplishment, Rev. The Mother of God has to carry out her kenosis of the Servant of the Lord, patient suffering with the passage of weapons into Her heart. From the glory of the Mount of Transfiguration we move on to the glory of the Lord’s Royal Entry into Jerusalem. Before His passion, the Lord reveals not only the heavenly glory of the Transfiguration, but also the glory of the earthly King. The triumphant “Hosanna” greets the holy city of the coming King, “the whole city shook” (Matthew 21:10), the disciples spread their vestments, the children cry out “Hosanna”, the people rejoice. But where is She, the Mother of the King entering His city? And this time She's not there. She is forgotten here, both in the narration of the evangelists, and in the service of the holiday, where there is absolutely no mention of Her name (there is not a single Mother of God, it is not even in the 9th ode), as if the Mother of God does not exist at all. And again we are amazed and ask ourselves about the power and meaning of this seeming harsh, almost cruel, oblivion. And again it becomes clear that it was not typical for the Virgin Mary, carrying a weapon in Her heart, to join in the joy of this celebration, “to form a holiday and those who rejoice to come to exalt Christ with the branches and branches.” And, of course, Her ignorance of what was happening is completely unacceptable: the Mother of God could not help but know what the entire excited country was talking about from top to bottom. And even if we admitted the incredible thing that she did not know, did not hear from people, then she knew the Holy Spirit resting on Her, and she realized that this procession on a donkey is the path to the place of execution, to public reproach, torment on the cross and death. And therefore we do not see Her joy here, but we perceive Her prophetic sorrow. With her She hid in the deep shadow, the Gospel is silent about Her, the Church is silent. But we must hear this silence, the cry of the Mother of God at the royal, but already cross entry of the Lord. And here they come, the last decisive days, when the fateful course of events recalled in the first days of Holy Week is finally determined. The Mother of God also does not seem to participate in these events, and any mention of Her in connection with them is absent in the Gospel, as well as in the services of the first four days of Holy Week (except for the general content of the Mother of God, and then only in the canons of Compline). From the deep shadow in which the image is hidden, She contemplates the impending passion of the Lord: the taking, and the scourging, and the delivery to death, and, before them, the Last Supper. An absolutely stunning fact in its significance is the absence of the Mother of God at the Last Supper: She is not present at this mysterious farewell of the Lord to the disciples, She does not hear the farewell conversation of the Lord, His promises, and the High Priestly prayer, verbs more important and sweeter than which have not been spoken in human language. She did not recline among the disciples when the Lord established the sacrament of the Body and Blood and introduced them to His disciples. And with irresistible persistence, questions crowd into our minds and hearts: why is She not here, what does this absence mean? Of course, it cannot be perceived only as an external fact, or an accident, for here it is inappropriate and even impious to think about accident. If it wasn’t, it couldn’t have been or shouldn’t have been. But then, what exactly does this absence mean? What is its internal basis and dogmatic meaning? Before answering this question, it is appropriate to recall one episode from the Gospel of John. This last contains only two references to the Mother of God, both absent from the other evangelists, but internally undoubtedly connected with each other. This is a story about a marriage in Cana of Galilee and about the standing of the Mother of God at the cross. Outwardly, they are connected by the fact that they have one thing in common: the Savior addresses His Mother, calling Her “Woman” (γύναι). This naming, obviously, takes this relationship beyond the purely kinship relationship between Mother and Son and gives it the character of universality: Mary, as the Mother of the New Adam, appears here as the New Eve, as the Church, as all God-bearing or God-receiving humanity, “Wife”. The miracle of turning water into wine at a wedding in Cana of Galilee (John ch. 2), like the similar miracle of feeding the people with five loaves, with a corresponding explanation of this miracle in the speech of the Lord (chap. 6), like other cases of blessing and breaking of bread by the Lord (such as on the way to Emmaus) undoubtedly has a Eucharistic-transformative meaning in its symbolism of water and wine. But no less important is the accompanying word of the Lord: - “And because there was a shortage of wine, the Mother of Jesus said to Him, “They have no wine.” Jesus said to her, “What is between Me and You, O Woman?” (John 2:3-5). What does this answer of Christ to the “Woman” mean that His hour has not yet come (especially if we compare it typologically with the definitely Eucharistic interpretation of the miracle of the feeding of loaves in chapter 6)? The only meaning that can only be given to these words is that the hour of the establishment of the Eucharist has not yet come, for the hour of the passion, the offering of the sacrifice of Calvary, has not yet approached. 3 However, we are clearly talking about this very hour, in which the atoning sacrifice will be offered, and thereby the Divine Eucharist will be established for all times. And yet, it is already being offered, since the entire earthly ministry of Christ, like the very incarnation of God, His kenosis, is a single integral act of redemption, and in it Golgotha ​​is only the final act in the series of all this ministry. Therefore, despite this seeming refusal of His Son, the Mother, who knows the meaning of what He said, says to the servants: “Whatever He tells you, do it” (5). And He truly says to them: “Fill the vessels with water... Now draw it and bring it to the master of the feast” (architrichline) (7-8). The miracle of the Eucharistic preparation (proskomedia) took place: water was turned into wine. According to the spirit of the Gospel of John, the event that is described here, in addition to its direct meaning, becomes transparent and as an internal spiritual accomplishment. And this meaning is solemnly confirmed by the Evangelist: “thus Jesus began the miracles (άρχήν τών σημείων) in Cana of Galilee and revealed His Glory, and His disciples believed in Him.” (11). So, this Eucharistic miracle is the beginning of miracles, that is, not only the first in a row, according to the order of the narration of Ev. In., but also in meaning. The beginning of miracles, that is, the basis for them, is the Eucharistic Sacrifice, offered by the Son from the very “beginning” of His ministry. But it is also the manifestation of glory (έφανέρωσεν τήν δόζαν αύτού). The latter is already the accomplishment of saving service, like the glorification of the Son by the Father, giving Him the glory that He had from the creation of the world (17:5). This glorification is spoken of precisely at the Last Supper and in connection with it in the Lord’s farewell conversation, which is, as it were, Eucharistic theology (similar to Chapter 6). The entire narrative of the Gospel of John. about the Last Supper, unlike the weather forecasters, consists precisely in this farewell conversation about Glory and about the Comforter, Who gives this Glory from the Father, she herself. And if in the same Ev. from In. in the story of the miracle - the “sign” in Cana of Galilee, we find in its application evidence of the appearance of His Glory, then it is in the language of this Gospel and in its entire context that it confirms the transformative-Eucharistic character of the “sign” itself. It is especially important for us here that during the performance of this sign the Mother of God was present and even participated in it, through appeals to Her Son. Therefore, She was not denied participation in this service, although it was limited to this alone. This simultaneous presence and absence of the Mother of God at the celebration of the Eucharist must be taken into account when interpreting this fact theologically. To fully understand it, we also need to add another fact from the Gospel of John, namely the standing of the Mother of God at the Cross, when the words were spoken to Her: “Woman, behold Thy son.” Here, as in Cana, Mary is equally not only “Mother” (“speaks to her Mother” - John 19:26), but also a Wife, i.e., as we have already explained, Humanity, the Church. So, as a Wife, as the hypostatic Humanity of Christ, as the Church, Mary was present at the beginning of the Divine Eucharist, as if at a proskomedia, and even actively participated in its accomplishment with Her prayer, as a Wife. On behalf of humanity She cries out: they have no wine, i.e. They do not have in themselves that life that the Lord himself taught about in the Eucharistic conversation of the 6th chapter: “Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has an eternal life” (54 ff.). And all the more expressive is Her absence at the Last Supper among the disciples who were mysteriously communed by the Lord of His Body and Blood, in anticipation of the saving passion and glorious resurrection. The question arises: was the Mother of God deprived of communion itself, unlike the apostles, among whom, however, She was present in the Upper Room of Zion at the descent of the Holy Spirit and together with them received His fiery tongue? Or was it not a deprivation, but simply an impossibility? In Catholic literature one can sometimes come across the opinion that the Mother of God received communion in Her earthly life, although for this, at least in the New Testament, there is no confirmation. In Orthodox theology this question is not usually raised. However, it is difficult to escape the thought that the absence of the Mother of God at the Last Supper is not accidental, but justified by necessity. The Last Supper was not only the establishment of the sacrament of the Eucharist for the Church - we have already seen that during its pre-establishment the Mother of God was present and even participated in it in her own way - but also a personal communion for all the apostles. However, the latter would be inappropriate for Her. Why? This can be answered based on eucharistic theology. Christ communed His disciples not with His earthly Body and Blood, with which He stood before them, but mysteriously, through the transformation of bread and wine into His glorified and resurrected Body and Blood (in anticipation of His resurrection and glorification). However, it was also His human, earthly nature, the one that He received from His Mother, Her own humanity. 4 As the Mother of God, She had the Son of God in her womb by the invasion of the Holy Spirit, and this connection between Her and Him does not cease even after the birth of the Son, She does not cease to be the Mother of God. She is already in union with Him, similar to that which is communicated to believers in the sacrament of the Eucharist through the communion of His body and blood. She herself is this body and blood in her personal poststatic existence. In this sense, she participates in the Eucharist, just as she participated in its “beginning”, in Cana of Galilee. Therefore, the communion of the body and blood of Christ did not correspond to Her Motherhood and would have been excessive for Her. She, like the Mother of God, is already in a state of continuous communication or communion with Him. Obviously, there is a difference between the human nature of Christ, as it exists in the Mother of God, and in His own divine-human existence. But to this, after the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ, we must add the whole difference between the unglorified humanity existing on earth, the Mother of God, and the resurrected and ascended into heaven humanity of Christ. However, is this difference forever established, and does the humanity of the Mother of God forever remain diminished in relation to the glorified humanity of Her Son? No, not forever, but only until the time, after which the glorification of the Mother of God begins. This takes place in the Dormition of the Mother of God, which includes Her resurrection, ascension and sitting at the right hand of the Son, that is, the all-perfect glorification of Her human nature, which is only accessible to him. But it is still not identical with the glorification of the Son, Who dwells in the bowels of the Holy Trinity, “at the right hand of the Father,” while the Mother of God sits only “at the right hand of the Son,” but outside the Holy One. The Trinity, as belonging to the created world (“in the Dormition you did not leave the world”), however, in direct connection and unity (“at the right hand”) with the God-Man. This means that Her human nature in its glorification joined the glorified humanity of the Son. In this sense, we can say that at the right hand of the Son, the seat of the Mother of God is Her eternal, as it were, Eucharistic communion, Her Last Supper in heaven. Thus, the Most Honest Cherub, the Mother of God and the Mother of all humanity, has Her own, as it were, extra-Eucharistic ways of communication with the Son, different in image from the general Eucharistic, but identical in power. Her seat at the right hand is the eternal heavenly Eucharist, the union of natures, divine and human, inseparably and inextricably communicating with each other. 5 But let's return to the events. So, they pass, the last days before the passion of Christ, and among them is the Last Supper, as if without any participation of the Mother of God, and the Mother of God remains in the impenetrable shadow. However, this shadow immediately becomes transparent, and the silence is suddenly broken when the days of Christ’s passion come. Our Lady appears on Calvary. As something taken for granted, which could not have been otherwise, Her standing at the cross is spoken of. Quietly, but with some amazing firmness, She took Her place. Where She was hiding until now, how She knew that Her time had come, we have no direct indication. Yes, it is not necessary, for even without this we know and cannot not know that She was here relentlessly, saw everything, experienced everything in the passion of Her Son. How could She not be near Him at His crucifixion? But even about this all three Synoptic Gospels are silent; are silent, instead of finally telling, in all its power and significance, what is happening to the Mother of God. So it would be natural for a human depiction of events, not by divine inspiration. But even here the evangelists prefer the language of silence. There is an indication of the standing at the cross of the Mother of God in the Gospel of John alone: ​​“at the cross of Jesus stood His Mother, and His Mother’s sister Mary of Cleophas and Mary Magdalene” (19, 25) - only among others who suffer and love Him, the presence of the Mother of God is revealed. However, the eye is not hidden from the gaze of the one who accepts death on the cross for the sin of the world of the Lamb of God. For the evangelist narrates with his stunning laconicism: “Jesus, having seen the Mother and the disciple whom he loved, said to His Mother: Woman, behold your son. Then he said to the disciple: behold your mother. And from that time this disciple took Her to himself” (19, 26-7), and - further added - “after that Jesus already knew that everything was finished” (28). Usually they see in this word of the Lord a farewell greeting to the Mother from the dying Son, like a human affection. But such an understanding would be meager and inconsistent with the whole greatness of what is happening, and it does not find confirmation for itself in the text. First of all, we hear here the same majestic and solemn address: “Woman,” as in Cana of Galilee. The Lord is addressing not only His Mother here, but also She who in Her feminine nature represents His humanity, the Body of Christ, the Church. And it is precisely this meaning that is emphasized in the text: “having seen the Mother... he says to His Mother: Woman.” Yes, he saw His Mother, but he addresses His Mother not as Mother: not “Mother,” but “Wife,” a solemn and important address, more hieratic than human-filial. With this appeal, the Mother is called to serve as a “Wife,” as if the soul of the Church. And this is further strengthened by the further appeal to the student: “Behold your Mother.” The beloved disciple, the only faithful disciple, standing at the cross, here represents the chosen people of the sons of God, as well as the spiritual head of the entire apostolate. This chapter is not Peter, who was tormented in the darkness of his denial. 6 This is the beloved disciple to whom Christ, as it were, entrusts His Church in the person of His Mother: “he received Her into his home.” Of course, we are not talking about a simple shelter here, and in any case not only about a shelter. After all, She had not previously had shelter from Her Son, Who, having left His native Nazareth to serve, He Himself did not have “where to lay His head” (Matthew 8:20). From the cross, the mutual delivery of John to Mary was completed, as a “son,” and Mary to the “son,” the adoption in the person of John of the entire church people, the “sons of God,” the Mother of God, with Her acceptance into the “house,” that is, into the life of church humanity with John at the head. This solemn message exhausts what the evangelist said about the Mother of God. And then there is complete silence about the entire exhaustion of the Mother of God on the cross, about the human sorrow of Her heart, which was pierced by a sharp weapon, about Her co-crucifixion and co-dying with Christ. But the Church is no longer silent here. She opens her lips in order to testify to the “Cross-Theotokos” sorrow. 7 There are no and cannot be human words to express the passion of the Cross of the Most Holy Theotokos, and we will not even attempt to do so, so as not to fall into impious and even blasphemous pretension. But it is all the more important to highlight the main features with which church songwriting (together with iconography) captures this grief. Corresponding chants appear from Matins on Great Friday, 8th, as well as at Vespers and Matins on Great Saturday. But we have the main focus of this expression of the sorrow of the Mother of God in the canon of Small Compline of the Great Heel “Lamentation of the Mother of God”, the creation of Simeon Logothet, and in the “praises” of Matins Vel. Saturdays (partly in the canon). In the “Lamentation of the Mother of God” we have the ultimate expression of the sorrow of standing on the cross. It is here, more than in other texts, that the co-dying of the Mother with the Son is expressed. The mother is depicted here as experiencing the full force of dying - true, only spiritual, but not physical, although it is impossible even to separate one from the other here. However, this dying still remains on this side of death. It was given to the Mother of God to die, but not to die, even then, and precisely then, when death would have been the easiest outcome for Her. She was deprived of death, which would have been the removal or abandonment of the cross placed upon Her, Her cross. She was entrusted with something more difficult than death itself - standing at the cross; she was given the opportunity to survive the death of her Son on the cross, but to remain alive. This was also the direct command of the Son from the cross: by Him She was handed over to the beloved disciple, of course, not for death, but for life. She was destined to endure long years of earthly life in separation from her Son, being “accepted” into the house of John, in order to be a living testimony of the incarnation, the living humanity of the God-man on earth, to become a consolation, the center of joy and inspiration of the Church, until the rest of Gethsemane. But now, at the cross, Her maternal-human heart is pierced by a weapon, it can only feel the agony of dying without death itself, want one thing: to die with Him, so as not to live without Him. “I would like to die with You, Most Pure One, in the words: I cannot bear to see You dead without breathing” (Lamentation of the Mother of God, paragraph 6, tr. 1). “Now receive Me with You, My Son and God, so that I may descend, Master, with You and I: do not leave Me alone, for I no longer tolerate living without seeing You, My sweet light” (item 7, tr. 2). “I will not rise from Thy grave, My child, nor will Thy servant wear away tears until I go down to hell: for I cannot endure separation from You, My Son” (paragraph 8, tr. 4). “Joy will never touch Me, the Immaculate One sobbingly said: My light and My joy will go into the grave: but I will not leave Thee alone, here I will die and be buried with Thee” (item 9, tr. 1). This is also expressed in the Vel service. Saturdays. 9 But the sorrow of dying and the darkness of death cannot plunge the Most Pure One into the darkness of despair, for it is cut through by the luminous lightning of resurrection, and its dawn is already kindling in Her heart. “For Thy creation, though to be saved, Thou didst suffer death, said the Most Pure One. 10 And the prophetic heart of the Mother hears: “Do not weep for Me, Mother, seeing me in the tomb... I will rise and be glorified”... 11 The symbolic third day in the tomb, the peace of divine sabbath, is full of silence and mystery. Nothing is said about him either in the Gospels or in liturgical books, and can anything be said in human language about what happened beyond the horizon, behind which the Sun disappeared to “descent into hell.” And this same audible silence, already filled with the light of the resurrection, descends into loving hearts crucified with Christ. About the myrrh-bearers it is said only (in the Evangelist Luke alone): “and on the Sabbath they remained at rest according to the commandment” (23-56). And in this same languid and promising “peace” the Mother of God resided, in whose heart the news of the coming resurrection sounded: “don’t weep for Me, Mother,” and She comprehended more and more deeply and fully what was happening on the other side of the Tomb and what was about to happen on the other side of death itself, the rising from the dead, the victory over death, the resurrection. In this alternation, all these internal achievements are connected and included in one another. We contemplate this sorrow of the Mother of God on the cross, first of all, as some external fact or historical event that might or might not have happened. After all, the Mother of Jesus could have tasted death herself, like Her successor Joseph, even earlier than the passion on the cross and the terrible death of Her Son, and then She would not have experienced standing at the cross and would have been free from its torment. She could, our crafty reason further suggests, simply be absent and not even know about what is happening in Jerusalem, and, thanks to this ignorance, also be freed from unbearable suffering. But both of these conjectures should be answered with a decisive no: this did not happen, and therefore, it could not have happened. It was not because it did not lie in the paths of Providence, which led and brought the Mother of God to the cross of Christ. And it is inappropriate, unacceptable, in such an event, which forms the center of all world history, the focus of the life of the entire world, to allow for chance and not see the internal necessity and highest expediency in all its details. But even more unacceptable is the possibility of the Mother of God’s absence or ignorance of the execution of her Son on the cross. This absurd and blasphemous thought, which blasphemes the highest dignity of the Mother of God, belittles the knowledge of Her loving Son, who comprehends the path of His heart to the depths, is unacceptable even as one of the actual possibilities, for it is an impossibility. And in general, it is inappropriate to guess here with some unfulfilled, and therefore impossible, possibilities; here we have only one highest necessity and irreducible reality. It was what was and what should have been, and it could not have been otherwise. Here we have not just facts, but also the very power of facts, their immutable necessity. These facts of the highest significance and meaning are dogmatic facts and truths, expressed, however, not in the language of dogmatic formulas, but of the events themselves. Let us try to reveal this meaning, to reveal this dogma of events. Obviously, this cannot be considered just an external coincidence, but one must understand the entire internal necessity of standing at the cross of the Mother of God. It exists here at least to the same extent as the presence of John on the Jordan to baptize the Lord and testify about Him. It is absolutely clear not only necessary, but also directly decisive in the matter of incarnation, the meaning of that self-determination that was confessed to the Most Pure One: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done to me according to your word.” For if She had not said this, but had otherwise answered the question of the archangel, then the incarnation of God would not have taken place, which was truly not only a Divine, but a Divine-human affair. And the power of this acceptance of the will of God on the part of the Servant of the Lord cannot be limited only to the seedless conception and birth of Christ, it connects Her entire life with His life, making Her the Mother of God forever and ever. She becomes an accomplice in the cross of Christ, in bearing it with Him, although in her own way, and differently from Him, in this one and saving accomplishment. The Lord had to be met in the world by everyone in his own time and place: by the angels, and the shepherds, and the wise men, and the righteous Simeon and Anna, and the Forerunner, and the apostles, and all the representatives of mankind chosen and prepared for this by God’s Providence. Among them, the Most Holy Theotokos visibly and invisibly accompanied His ministry. And due to the same internal necessity, She had to take Her own place, prepared for Her by the Providence of God, at the cross, in order to share His suffering and, in this sense, be crucified with Him. And this co-crucifixion is not only one of the random coincidences, but it was also essential for the crucifixion of Christ itself, for without the first, the last would not have happened in the force that it should have happened. If the “Wife” - the Mother would not have revealed Herself to the end as the Servant of the Lord, accepting and on her part carrying out the command of God, if She had not withstood the torment of her mother’s co-crucifixion to the end of the cross, if Her strength of faith had been exhausted, and Her consciousness would have been eclipsed by unbearable suffering, or Her earthly life would have been cut short, then all this would have had a significance - we will not determine what - and for the redemptive feat Christ's. For She participated in it in her own way, and this participation of Her - and, moreover, in only one, absolutely definite way - was necessary for its completeness, and the Mother of God brought this gift of Her sacrificial love to the cross. She remained at the cross the same Servant of the Lord as in the Nazareth Upper Room when she met the archangel. Without this saving participation, the work of our salvation could not have been accomplished, just as without the Mother of God’s answer and decision the incarnation would not have been accomplished. The two-sided, divine-human character is inherent not only in the Annunciation, it is preserved in the further relationship of the Mother of God and the God-man, throughout the entire earthly life of both, as well as beyond it, in heaven, forever and ever. Therefore, the teaching about the cross of the Mother of God must be dogmatically included in the teaching about the cross of Christ and in the teaching about atonement. The Mother of God herself does not save or redeem; on the contrary, She needs redemption and salvation from Her Son (“and My spirit rejoiced in God My Savior”). But She co-redeems and co-saves. In this sense, the Mother of God in church hymns is called the Lamb. 12 The Savior and Redeemer is Christ, the God-man, but He is united in His humanity with the Mother of God, and further with the entire human race, not only by the power of Her nature, but also by Her hypostatic freedom, and it is necessary that this freedom agree in everything with the Theanthropic will, and She would remain in it “the servant of the Lord.” It is necessary here to eliminate the possibility of any misunderstanding regarding the actual extent of this participation of the Mother of God in the matter of our salvation. The Mother of God herself, being a man, is powerless to redeem man, that is, to save the creation. But at the same time, without Her willing participation, this salvation itself cannot be accomplished in its entirety by the One Who is the only and true Savior and Redeemer of the human race. In this sense, She herself does not accomplish salvation, but is its necessary condition on the human side. After all, the Holy Spirit, who rested on the Mother of God, does not incarnate and does not become human, and therefore also cannot be called the Savior and Redeemer. However, we know that by His influx the incarnation of God was accomplished, and by His condescension the humanity of the God-Man was completely sanctified and anointed in baptism (just as by His power, by the will of the Father, the resurrection of Christ and His sitting at the right hand of the Father are further accomplished). And to be precise, then the Holy Spirit. can be called a co-Savior and a co-Redeemer, although this does not diminish or abolish the power of the fact that the Lord I. Christ is our only Savior. It is necessary that humanity, in the person of the Mother of God and the beloved disciple (of course, in different ways and to varying degrees), should be crucified with Christ, and not passively just accept the salvation He has given. The very acceptance of salvation, the assimilation of its fruits, presupposes taking up one’s cross and following Christ, according to His word, or co-crucifixion with Him, according to the word of His apostle. In other words, it must be crucified, just as the Lord is crucified with each suffering person (according to the questions and answers at the Last Judgment). And this co-crucifixion on behalf of all humanity, for everyone and for everyone, was accepted and performed by the Mother of God at the cross. PIeta, the position of the Savior in the tomb, surrounded by the Mother of God bending over Him along with other chosen representatives of the human race, is a complete image of our redemption: the Savior who tasted death on the cross and the Mother of God who accepted the co-crucifixion: Jesus and Mary, Christ and the Church. The Mother of God was not given the opportunity to taste death itself together with Her Divine Son. On the contrary, Her death was delayed for a long time, just as Her glorification was delayed. Thus it was determined in the ways of building our salvation, and the “Servant of the Lord” was destined once again to humbly submit to this Divine judgment. Humility is patience, and patience is love and faith. The Mother of God, temporarily accepted into the inheritance of Her betrothed son, beloved John, and here awaiting eternal union with Her Son in heaven, accepts the cross of this patience in the sacrificial service of love, in the Church. But She had already walked the path of redemption on the cross, and at the end of it, what it led to was revealed to Her: the glorious resurrection of Christ. If the disciples, and the myrrh-bearers, and many learned about the completed resurrection through the Lord himself, who appeared to them, then She, it would seem, should have been the first to know about it, having seen the Risen One himself. And yet, the Gospel is again silent about this. It tells about different appearances of the Risen One and about different persons to whom He appeared. However, the Mother of God is not among them. She seems to be forgotten again, and goes into such a thick shadow that she becomes completely invisible. Such is the humility of the Servant of the Lord here. However, the Church, in accordance with internal self-evidence, preserves the firm tradition that the risen Lord was the first to appear to the Most Holy Mother of God, and the church hymn assures that this phenomenon was preceded by the appearance of the Archangel, as if a new annunciation. For the Church sings on the days of Holy Easter: The Angel cries out with Grace: Your Son is risen three days from the grave, At Ev. John we have only one more mention of the Mother, namely in Cana of Galilee - more on this below. Contrary to Catholic legend, She, of course, did not need personal baptism with water, just like the apostles, who all received the Holy Spirit in the Upper Room of Zion. This corresponds to the beginning of chapter 13, where the Eucharistic Supper is discussed: “Jesus, knowing that his hour had come to pass from the world to the Father,” etc. From the following to St. communion: “the one pure and incorruptible Lord, our all-perceived mixture from pure and virgin blood, more than the nature that gave birth to Thee, the Divine Spirit by the invasion and benevolence of the Father and ever-present”... In accordance with this participation of the Mother of God in the Eucharist, the last of the prayers of thanksgiving after communion is addressed specifically to Her: “Most Holy Lady... I thank Thee, for Thou hast vouchsafed me, an unworthy partaker, to be in the most pure body and blood of Thy Son... And vouchsafed me, until my last breath, to uncondemnably receive the sanctification of the most pure mysteries, for the healing of soul and body.” For a more extensive discussion of the same issue, see the essay (not published): “The Eucharistic Sacrifice,” chapter: “The Eucharist and the Mother of God” (1940). By the way, what a lesson is being taught here to Catholic petrology, which for some reason it does not heed. After all, if it were Peter, what dogmatic patterns on the topic of the “prince of the apostles” would be drawn here, but regarding John, silence is preferred. “Theotokos of the Cross” (as a special type of “Theotokos”) is a chant that refers to the image of the Mother of God at the cross. Such “Cross-theotokos” rely on all Wednesdays and Fridays (except for certain exceptional days) and are numbered in the liturgical books by many dozens, if not more. Ikos Matins Vel. Heel: “Looking at her lamb, the lamb is drawn to the slaughter, followed by Mary, who is tormented with other wives, crying out: where are you going, child, for the sake of which you are committing, when there is another marriage again in Cana and there now you are trying, and make wine for them from the water. Will I go with you, child, or rather wait for you? Give me your word, the Word, don’t pass me by in silence, keeping me pure, for you are my son and my God.” The same ikos in the “Lamentation of the Mother of God”: like the memory of Cana, one remembers “the ancient Annunciation, which Gabriel said: King Thee, son and God on high, I now see Thee, my sweet light, naked and wounded dead” (Lamentation of the Mother of God, paragraph 7, tr. 1). From the laudatory stichera of Matins Vel. Heel: ... “Your Mother is coming, crying, weeping motherly: no matter how much I weep and beat my womb, seeing You naked, as if condemned, hanging on a tree.” The stichera is self-concordant at the same time: “Today, the immaculate Virgin, beholding Thee, the Word, is nailed to the cross, weeping with her mother’s womb, wounded by the heart of the mountaineer, and moaning painfully from the depths of her cheeks, tormenting her hair, in contrition. Likewise, the beating hearts cry pitifully: alas for me, divine child, alas for me, the light of the world. Why have you gone from before my sight, lamb of God? Hanging on a tree, seeing Thee, Christ, the Creator of all and God, who without seed gave birth to Thee, crying out bitterly: My Son, where has the goodness of Thy sight gone? I can’t stand to see You being crucified unrighteously.” The same stichera on Great Friday at Vespers. At the Matins of Praise, verses 28, 51, 69, 76, 92, 93, 119–121, 125, 148, 162–3, 173. Canon, paragraph 9, tr. 1–2. Lamentation of the Mother of God, paragraph 9, tr. 4. Canon of V. Saturday, paragraph 9, irmos. See in the canon of Compline of St. and the great heel “Lamentation of the Mother of God”, the creation of Simeon Logothet (cf. above p. 13): “The Lamb beholds his own Lamb.” The Holy Cross on the verse of Vespers on Thursday of the first week of Pentecost: “On the cross I saw You nailed, O Lord, the Lamb and Your Mother marveled.” One cannot see here only rhetoric or church poetry; rather, this is a weighty dogmatic formula for expressing participation in the redemption of Christ and His Mother.