The teaching of St. John of Damascus about the Most Holy Theotokos according to his words on the Feasts of the Theotokos

In his theology, St. John of Damascus with special force - even against the background of the patristic tradition - emphasized the importance of the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church. “I will not say anything of my own, but to the best of my ability I will put together and present in a concise presentation what was developed by the chosen teachers,” he testified at the beginning of the main work of his confessional life, the book “The Source of Knowledge” (PG 94, 524). Everything that Damascene writes about the Holy Trinity, about Christ, about the Mother of God, he draws from the “divine Tradition”, which is revealed to us and handed down by God through the entire House of Christ (see: Accurate iz. I, 1). That is why in the title of the article and further in the text we use the term Θεοτοκολογία (“the doctrine of the Most Holy Theotokos”), and not “Mariology”, not only because the latter is of a later and, moreover, non-Orthodox origin, but also because, first of all, it is not possible to identify any special “Mariology” in the theological system of Damascus. “Let us stand, brothers, on the rock of faith and on church tradition, without changing the limits that St. Our fathers, without giving room to those who want to introduce something new... let us accept church tradition in the simplicity of our hearts, and not with many considerations,” calls on St. John of Damascus of his contemporaries in the VII Sermon against those who reject St. icons (РG 96, 1356–1357) 1. Damascene’s own fidelity to the tradition of the Church lies, first of all, in the fact that “just like Scripture and the Fathers, Damascene looks at everything and interprets everything Christologically” 2 . God the Word, One from the Holy Trinity, born of our Virgin for the sake of salvation, is the central theme of all Scripture and Tradition, 3 and therefore the entire theology of St. John of Damascus, so that not only in the “Accurate Exposition of the Orthodox Faith” more than half is devoted to Christ, but also in the Words themselves for the feasts of the Mother of God, Christology dominates. The doctrine of the Most Holy Theotokos (Θεοτοκολογία) exists among Damascenes only as part of Christology, and not as some independent teaching or a special section of anthropology dedicated to the Holy Virgin. Orthodox theology of St. John of Damascus is primarily a Christology, which embraces, of course, both the doctrine of man and the doctrine of the Face of the Blessed Virgin. The very name Θεοτόκος (“Theotokos”), with which the Church solemnly confirmed the Motherhood of the Blessed Virgin at the Third Ecumenical Council, was established in the context of Christological disputes: in contrast to those who denied the Motherhood of God, the hypostatic unity of the Son of God, who became the Son of Man, is defended here. In the First Homily for the Dormition of St. John of Damascus spoke about it this way: “There is One Christ, One Lord, One Son, One and the same God and Man; together perfect God and perfect man, all God and all man, but one complex Hypostasis from two perfect natures - deity and humanity and in two perfect natures - deity and humanity; not naked God and not a simple man, but One Son of God and God Incarnate, at the same time God and at the same time He is a man” (Usp. I, 4) 5. It is the name and dignity of Christ as God incarnate and made man that gives the right to the church consciousness to call His Mother “truly the Mother of God,” and the name Theotokos (Θεοτόκος) “contains and constitutes the entire sacrament of the House of God,” for it confirms that “He who is born of Her is certainly God, but certainly also man” (Exact. Ill. III, 12). St. John of Damascus, being the faithful guardian of the heritage of the great fathers of the church, together with St. Gregory the Theologian repeats: “If anyone does not confess the Holy Virgin as the Mother of God, he is alien to the Divinity” (Rozhd., 4). But at the same time, precisely because of fidelity to the tradition of the same Fathers, he confesses: “He Whom we worship is the True God,” and “We honor and honor the Mother of God... And, knowing this Virgin as the Mother of God, we do not call Her a goddess (θεάν) - away from us such tales of Hellenic stupidity; after all, we proclaim Her death, but we know Her as the Mother of God, because God became incarnate (from Her)” (Usp. II, 15) 6. Damascus points to the Motherhood of God as the main goal of the life of the Most Pure Virgin Mary in the following words: “You did not live for Yourself and were not born for Yourself. You lived for God, for Him you entered into life in order to serve world salvation, so that through You the ancient advice of God about the incarnation of the Word and our deification would be fulfilled” (Rozh., I, 9). The above Christological words of St. John sound extremely relevant in our era. They should be remembered not only in relation to Roman Catholics, who distort the true face of the Mother of God with their new “dogmas” and their autonomous “Mariology”, or Protestants, who deny all veneration of Her - both the first and the second, in one way or another, broke away from the true faith and tradition of the Catholic Church - but also in relation to those who, according to the fair characterization of Hierarch. Afanasy Ievtich, “they want to present the doctrine of the Mother of God not as one of the points of Christology, but placing it outside of tradition on the basis of a clearly extra-Orthodox “sophiology”” 7. Unlike all “sophiologies” and “mariologies”, the teaching of St. John of Damascus is in direct connection with the “ancient and true” (Usp. I, 10) God’s Council on “the incarnation of the Word and our deification.” “According to the inscrutable depth of His love for mankind” (Usp. I, 10), the Life-Giving Trinity, “gathering to Himself in a council (πρὸς Ἑ αυτὴν ἐκκλησιάσασα), by a single council of His will” 8 determined before all centuries the incarnation of God the Word and the deification of man. According to this pre-eternal “predetermined Council” (Birth. 7), “One of the Trinity had to come to people... It was impossible to come to the sons of men without the Incarnation. Incarnation is the path to birth, and birth is a consequence of pregnancy. Therefore, it was necessary to prepare the Mother of the Creator on earth” 9 so that “She would reveal the indescribable abyss of God’s love for people” (Usp. II, 16). So, the Blessed Virgin Mary “was predestined by the eternal providential Council of God” (PG 96, 411) 10 to participate in the Economy of God. God the Father, according to foreknowledge (προγνωστικῶς), predestined Her as the Mother of His Only Begotten Son, Who is from Her “incarnate, being from the beginning incorporeal, for our sake and for our salvation” (Usp. II, 15). This divine predestination (προοπισμός) of the Holy Virgin is inseparable from the eternal foreknowledge (πρόγνωσις) of Her free will and personal holiness. Divine foreknowledge or foreknowledge, according to the words of the Holy Fathers, is foreseeing (προθεωρητική), but not forced (see Exact. Ill. II, 30; IV, 19). In his sermon on the Annunciation, Nicholas Kavasila says: “The Incarnation was not only the work of the Father, His Power and Spirit, without the assistance of faith, this Economy was as impracticable as without the action of the three Divine Hypostases... (God) wanted His Mother to give birth as freely as He was incarnated voluntarily” (RO XIX, 2). The following words of Damascus are about the same principle of assistance, the synergy of God and the free will of man: “Truly you have found grace, worthy of grace” (Usp. I, 8). “To be the Mother of the Incarnate Son of God... - this is for the Virgin Mary... a gift of grace, which also presupposes the participation of Her free will, as a moral feat on Her part,” explains Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) 11 . However, let's go back a little. After, “rushing after false deification” (Usp. II, 2), our forefathers fell through disobedience (Usp. II, 3), dressed in “skin garments of mortification” (Rozh. 4; Usp. II, 2) and coarse flesh (Ton. iz. III, 1) 12, and fell under mortality and decay (Ton. iz. IV, 3), and all of us, their descendants, “as those born of Adam became like him, inheriting the curse and corruption” (ibid.), and found ourselves outside of Paradise deprived of the grace of the Holy Spirit (Usp. II, 2) - even then the humane Creator began to arrange a providential plan (οἰκονομία for our salvation (Exact iz. III, 1), to prepare human conditions of the incarnation of the Son of God. “This is the economy of God,” notes Vl. Lossky, “the divine will does not destroy the history of mankind” 13, for according to the Holy Fathers, “salvation is given to those who wish, and not to those who are forced” 14, that is, a person is called to cooperate and cooperate with the God who creates his salvation in accordance with the fluctuations of the will of people. people to God's call. The Old Testament is, in a sense, “the history of the slow and difficult progress of fallen man along the path to the “fullness of times” 15, the history of humanity’s preparation for the incarnation of the Son of God, in which human freedom is constantly tested by the will of God. Thus, having passed through generations of Old Testament righteous people, through many purifications and sanctifications, the Economy of God reached its pinnacle and completion in the Most Holy Virgin, Who, as primarily “chosen” (Usp. I, 3) and “obedient” to God (Usp. I, 8; Usp. II, 3), “served the Trinity” (Usp. II, 5) and assisted in the Economy salvation greater than all the saints from all eternity. So, the Most Holy Theotokos, “Daughter of the Tsar”, to Whom all the foretellings, pre-images and prophecies of the Old Testament relate (Usp. II, 9-10), is, according to St. John of Damascus, the pinnacle of the Old Testament “pedagogical” preparation of humanity for the acceptance of the Incarnate God the Savior, and therefore it is impermissible and impossible to separate Her from the race of Adam, the human race. For, according to John of Damascus, She is both “the daughter of Adam” (Rozhd., 6; Usp. II, 2), and the daughter of David, “the forefather and Godfather” (Usp. II, 2), from whose root She was born “according to promise” (Usp. I, 7). The birth of the Holy Virgin from the “root of Jesus” (Birth, 3), despite the miraculous resolution of Anna’s infertility (Birth, 2; Assumption I, 6–7), does not separate Her from all Her ancestors and brothers, and from the ancestor Adam himself (Birth, 6). Like other people, the Blessed Virgin was born under the sign of original sin and, together with everyone else, as the “daughter of the old Adam,” She is under the “responsibility of the father” (τὰς πατρικὰς εὐθύνας – Usp. II, 2) both in relation to Her conception and birth from her parents, and in relation to Her death. The Virgin Mary was conceived from natural communion in the marriage of 16 Joachim and Anna (Rozh., 2; Exact. Ill. IV, 14), and “has origin from the earth” (Birth, 3), “inheriting the corruptible body” of Adam (Usp. II, 8). She also dies a human death (see Usp. II, 15) 17, “because of Adam she sends her body to the earth” (Usp. III, 4). Her “most sacred blessed soul, according to the laws of nature, is separated from the glorious and immaculate body” (Usp. I, 10), and “the body is given over to lawful burial” (ibid.). Thus, the Blessed Virgin was, like all people, the heir of the ancestral sin of Adam 18, and therefore Damascene definitely speaks of Her cleansing and sanctification by the invasion of the Holy Spirit during the Annunciation before Her conception of the Son of God: “The Father predestined Her, the prophets predicted by the Holy Spirit, and the sanctifying power of the Spirit by His invasion cleansed, sanctified and, as it were, in advance irrigated. And then You, the Word of the Father, indescribably dwelt [in Her]..." (Usp. I, 4). All of the above does not mean, of course, that St. John of Damascus does not recognize or speak about the holiness of the Most Blessed Virgin, but shows how far this Orthodox Father of the Church is in everything from the latest heretical false teaching of the Roman Church attributed to him by Western Mariologists 19 about the so-called “immaculate conception” (Immaculata conceptio) of the Virgin Mary, that is, about Her removal at birth from original sin. This Vatican innovation 20 does not increase, but detracts from, the true dignity and personal free holiness of the Blessed Virgin, for, as Metropolitan points out. Sergius (Stragorodsky), “innate, involuntary purity, like any natural perfection, in itself has no moral value, and most importantly, it is the perfection and purity of the creature” 21. Moreover, this false “dogma” in its final conclusions shakes the entire reality and truth of our salvation, for through it, through the separation of the Mother of God from Her ancestors, it not only undermines the entire meaning of the preparatory economic history of the Old Testament, but also denies the unity of the nature of the human race and calls into question the very “truly saving incarnation of Christ from the true representative of fallen humanity” 22. The unity of human nature is one of the fundamental truths of Orthodox anthropology, and it is forgotten in Roman Catholic theology 23 . As Rev. rightly notes. Sergius Bulgakov, this is due “to the general lack of clear anthropology” 24 among Catholics, although this happened, of course, not because of their lack of sophiology, as Bulgakov believes, but because of the separation of the anthropology of the West from its true Christological foundations. Speaking about the perception of man by the Hypostasis of God the Word (more precisely, about the inseparable and unfused union and hypostasis - Accurate iz. III, 2, 9, 22), Damascene repeatedly emphasizes that the Lord perceived the entire fullness of humanity, except for sin (see, for example, Usp. I, 4). Following St. Maximus the Confessor 25 speaks of the “immaculate passions” that the Lord took upon Himself: “We confess that Christ had all the natural and impeccable passions (τὰ φυσικὰ καὶ ἀδιάβλητα πάθι) of man. For He took on the whole man and everything that belongs to man, except sin... Natural and impeccable passions are not in our power, which entered human life as a result of the condemnation that occurred due to crime, such as hunger, thirst, labor, tears, corruption 26... and the like, which is inherent in all people by nature” (Ton. iz. III, 20). So this nature with infirmities, weaknesses, “the natural and blameless passions of my (human) composition” (Usp. I, 4) and in general corruption (which in themselves are not sin, but entered into human nature as the consequences of sin) the Lord took upon Himself precisely the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, whom “by the nature of a servant, He, in the unsearchable depths of His love for mankind, economically made [His] Mother, truly incarnate, invisibly becoming human” (Usp. I, 10). The Lord took this corruptible body from the Holy Virgin 27 so that in such a body - through the suffering of the cross - he could save us, corruptible people. He “did not turn away from the trials of a mortal, for he dies according to the flesh and through death destroys death, through corruption he bestows incorruption and makes mortification the source of the Resurrection” (Usp. I, 10)... This is what St. Damascene’s often repeated expression means. Gregory the Theologian: “let like save like” (Usp. II, 15; Accurate iz. III, 18). And therefore, the Most Holy Theotokos, who gave to God the Word that “flesh that came from the earth,” with which Christ “acquired corruption through corruption” (Usp. III, 1), “who gave birth to the salvation of the world - Christ” (Usp. I, 9), became, in the words of St. John of Damascus, “the place of doing” (ἐργαστήριον) our salvation, and he turns to Her with a prayerful greeting: “Rejoice,... The Lamb who gave birth to the Lamb of God, who took upon Himself the sin of the world, the place of doing our salvation, exceeding the angelic powers, servant and Mother” (Usp. III, 5). But if St. John of Damascus definitely teaches that the Most Holy Theotokos was the heir to the nature of the old Adam, having in Herself all the power of original sin as weakness, then he also testifies that in terms of personal attitude towards sin and personal overcoming it, She remained free from any participation in the doing of evil, was blameless and sinless, and personally acquired, with the help of the grace of God, an unsurpassed height of holiness. St. John of Damascus, whose hymns to the Mother of God have been adopted by the Orthodox Church, glorifies Her personal holiness, calling Her “exceeding the angelic powers” ​​(Usp. III, 5), “exceeding the cherubim and exalted above the seraphim” (Rozh., 9), “truly, after God, purest of all” (Usp. II, 16). He firmly and clearly teaches about the complete sinlessness of the Virgin Mary in Her birth, Her holy childhood and adolescence, in the Annunciation, in the birth of the Son and in all life until the day when Her holiness becomes transfigured and incorruptible in Her Dormition and Repose. At the same time, “freedom from the personal sin of the Virgin Mary was not only Her personal feat, but also the feat of the entire Old Testament Church of all forefathers and godfathers, this is the pinnacle of the ascent of the entire human race - the crown of heaven that blossomed on the human tree” 28. The inheritance of original sin was ineffective in Her, for Her will and all the powers of Her soul and Body were “dedicated to God and the Master...” 29. Her righteous and pious parents Joachim and Anna gave birth to Her in chastity and abstinence, so Damascene calls the “seed” of Joachim “pure seed” (Rozh., 2); in general, both he and other saints. Fathers 30 seriously take into account this moment of the birth of the Holy Virgin from elderly and chaste parents, St. John of Damascus describes how Joachim and Anna “through prayer and promise receive the Mother of God from God” (Accurate fig. IV, 14), how the Holy Virgin, even in childhood, “is brought and betrayed to the Church of God” (Usp. I, 7) and what kind of life She spends there (see: Usp. I, 5). “How can I depict Your majestic step? How's the robe? Like a face full of affection? - asks St. John of Damascus. - [You have] an old mind in an infant body. [Your] clothing is modest, avoiding luxury and bliss; the gait is stately, calm, and free from lethargy. His character is strict, but combined with cordiality... meek words coming from a kind soul. What else [can one conclude] but that You are a worthy dwelling place for God” (Rozhd. I). The sinless life of the Most Blessed Virgin, on the one hand, and the rich grace of God, on the other, were so great that Damascus says about Her: “Such has not been before and such will not be after” (Usp. I, 6), and also: “She is a gift to this world at the same time the greatest and most gracious of all the gifts of God” (Usp. I, 5). “Spending her life in the palace of the Spirit” (Rozhd., 7), “The young woman walked in the justifications of the Lord” 31. The whole life of the Virgin Mary at the church was a constant spiritual growth, it was a feat of life “better and purer than others” (Usp. I, 7; Usp. III, 16), including among these “others” even angels (Usp. I, 8), so that at the moment of the Annunciation She was rightly honored to hear the Archangel’s greeting: “Rejoice, O Gracious One, the Lord is with Thee,” and: “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found grace with God” (Luke I, 28, quoted in: Dormition I, 8). Explaining these words of the Archangel St. John of Damascus says: “Truly you have found grace worthy of grace. You have found grace, Who labored, cultivating the field of grace, and reaped the rich harvest of grace. You have found an abyss of grace, Who preserved unharmed the boat of pure virginity: after all, You kept the soul virgin no less than the body, and hence the virginity of the body was preserved” (Usp. I, 8). These words show how faith in God and devotion to Him unite in the person of the Blessed Virgin the human will with the Divine will, as in theanthropic synergism (“assistance”) “God gives His grace, Himself, and man gives his own will - all of himself” 32 (cf. Col. 2:9-10; 1 Cor. 15:10). Many centuries after Damascus, but in full spiritual and theological agreement with him, Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov) reasoned about the events of the Annunciation: “On [this] unprecedented day in the existence of the world, when the Divine Mariam uttered Her short and obedient “wake up”... the word of the creature brings down the Creator into the world... Her humble “wake up” was needed so that God’s majestic “wake up” would act. What kind of hidden power lies in these simple words: “Behold, the servant of the Lord: be mine according to Thy word,” and produces such an unusual effect? This wonderful power is Mariam’s purest and perfect devotion to God with will, thought, soul, whole being, every ability, every action, every hope and expectation” 33. The event of the Annunciation testifies to the unspeakable moral greatness - even at that very moment - of the Blessed Virgin, for if “gifts [of God] are given according to the measure of love for God” 34, then She truly demonstrated in Her life a holiness above the cherubim and Seraphim (Rozh., 9), in order to be worthy of such great grace. Her virtues and “streams of the gifts of the Holy Spirit” (Rozh., 9) so adorned the Virgin Mary, the virgin and the most pure virgin (Usp. II, 2), “the rose that grew from the thorns of Judaism” (Rozh., 6), that she became “the adornment of human nature” (Rozh., 7), in Whom “the Creator God rejoiced” (Rozh., 9). And therefore she is elected to the “Bride and Mother of God” (Birth., 7), is “a holy and amazing church worthy of the Most High God” (Exact. Ill. IV, 14). Such was the holiness of the Mother of God before the Annunciation. But, of course, St. John of Damascus expressed the pan-Orthodox belief that Her highest perfection was achieved during the Annunciation and the Nativity of Christ. The pinnacle of Her glory, “the beginning, the middle and the end” (Usp. I, 12), “the immutable and true confirmation of all the blessings that exceed the human mind” (Usp. I, 12), became for the Virgin Mary “the seedless conception [by the Holy Spirit of the incarnate Word of the Father - Birth:, 3], the divine indwelling [Hypostases of the Son of God - Birth, 6] and the incorruptible birth of [Immanuel, the God-man Jesus – Birth., 4]” (Usp. I, 12). For, unlike all other women, “the glory of the Mother of God within is the fruit of Her womb” (Rozh., 9), Christ. In the Annunciation, as in a seed, a plant receives the beginning of “the salvation of our glavism and the manifestation of the hedgehog from the age of the Sacrament”: both divine motherhood and divine humanity 35. Indeed, the Holy Virgin is vouchsafed the incomprehensible and humane condescension, the infusion and incarnation of God the Word, whom She accepted with infinite obedience and humility (Act. III, 2; Usp. I, 8; Usp. II, 3). Following Saint Justin and Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Damascus contrasts two virgins - Eve and Mary. If through the disobedience of the first death entered humanity and into the world, then through the obedience of the second “incorruption was introduced into the world,” and the life-giver entered into the descendants of Adam (Rozh., 7). The patristic expression “god-created humility” (θεοποιὸς ταπείνωσις) is most applicable to the Most Holy Theotokos, for with Her obedience and humility “she made God the Son of man, and man the Son of God” 36. By the humility of the Mother of God and her obedience to God, the problem and tragedy of human freedom was forever resolved, and through this human freedom revealed its creation “in the image and likeness” of God’s freedom (Exact fig. III, 14), as Archimandrite often says about this. Justin Popovich, following Rev. Maximus the Confessor and other Fathers 37. About how the mystery of the Incarnation took place, “only God Himself knows,” according to Damascene,” and “a person should not speculate about the nature of that which is inscrutable and incomprehensible” 38 . However, without touching upon the very method of the Incarnation of God the Word, St. John of Damascus definitely points to the omnipotence of God as the source of the fulfillment of the mystery of Christ. “All this happened according to the will of God, for everything is possible when God wants it, and impossible when He does not want it” (Usp. II, 7) 39. And this omnipotence of God coincides, according to Damascene, with His “ineffable and condescending incarnation” (Rozhd., 2). For only as immeasurable condescension can one understand how God the Word “appeared on earth” (Rozh., 3) and “descended to an exalting exhaustion... how the Most Essential One from a woman’s womb is Most Essentially realized; how, being God, He became man... and, without leaving the essence of the Divinity, He, like us, became a participant in flesh and blood; how He who fills everything and who exists above all settled in a cramped place; how the material and grass-like body of this glorified [Virgin] received the consuming fire of the Divine and, like genuine gold, turned out to be indestructible” (Usp. II, 7); how She appeared “before the Nativity as a virgin, at the Nativity as a virgin, and after the Nativity as a virgin, the only Virgin and Ever-Virgin” (Rozhd., 5). Based on this incomprehensible mystery of the incarnation of the Son of God, St. John of Damascus confesses that the Blessed Virgin is called and is “in the proper sense and truly” the Mother of God (Θεοτόκος) (Exact iz. III, 12), as “who gave birth not just to a God-bearing or deified person, but to God the Word Himself, the incarnate Son of God.” But in addition, since human nature, through the hypostatic union with the Divine in the womb of the Most Blessed Virgin, “became deified”, became “monotheistic with the Word” (Exact. Ill. IV, 18; Usp. II, 2), and rose to the point of deification, the Holy Virgin is also called the Mother of God “not only for the sake of the nature of the Word, but also for the sake of the deification of man” (Exact. Ill. III, 12). Damascene considers the confession of the dogma of the Mother of God, as closely connected and arising from the dogma of the Incarnation, to be a criterion of true Christianity and therefore addresses those who rebel against the name of the Most Holy Virgin Theotokos with the following formidable words: “Those who confess You as Theotokos are blessed, and those who do not recognize You are cursed!” (Birth., II). Also, the mystery of the Ever-Virginity of the Unbrided Bride, which is in an inextricable internal connection with the mystery of the Divine Incarnation, together with the entire Church, is testified by St. John of Damascus. “Both you give birth, and you are virgins, and you remain with both the nature of the Virgin: He who is born renews the laws of nature, but the womb gives birth without giving birth,” 40 - sings the Holy Church at the beginning of Great Lent. Before birth, at birth itself and after birth, John of Damascus calls the Most Holy Theotokos a virgin, “mind, soul and body ever-virgin” (Rozhd., 5). Just as in the permanent conception of the Son of God She was “unartfully married” (ἀπείρανδρος – Rozh., 6) and “unartfully made” (ἀπειρόγαμος – Usp. I, 14), so in the birth “He who was born kept Her virginity intact, He alone passed through Her and kept her imprisoned” (Accurate iz. IV, 14), “and opened the womb, without destroying the womb, without destroying the constipation of virginity” (Usp. I, 9). According to Damascus, the birth of the God-man Christ from the Ever-Virgin Mary was at the same time “for our sake (δι ’ ἡμ ᾶ ς), in our likeness ( καθ ’ ἡμ ᾶ ς) and above us ( ὑπὲρ ἡμ ᾶ ς)” (Accur. izl. III, 7), that is, both salvific, and natural, and supernatural: “for our sake, because for the sake of our salvation, in our likeness, because God the Word was made man by a Woman and was born at the usual time after conception; above us, because he was born not from a seed, but from the Holy Spirit and from the Holy Virgin Mary, above the law of conception” (ibid.) and “without diseases” (Usp. II, 3), common at birth 41. Virginity at the birth of the Infant of God was a gift of God for the Mother of God, but She, continues Damascene, “remained a virgin even after childbirth, not entering into communion with her husband until death” (Exact Ill. IV, 14), that is, in Her later life she established this gift of God with Her personal feat and in this way achieved, with the assistance of the grace of God, the highest degree of holiness, which is only accessible to human nature, genuine Ever-Virginity. The Most Holy Theotokos lived the years of the Savior’s earthly life with Him, all the time remaining in humility, shadow and obscurity, but undoubtedly participating maternally in the sacrificial service of Her Son, and at the hour of His death on the cross She “took into her heart the sword of suffering, which she escaped at birth” (PV IV, 14) 42. Orthodox worship with countless prayers called “theotokos” expresses this idea about the participation of the Mother of God in the suffering of the Son 43 . After the Ascension of the Savior and Pentecost, “carrying out the service of the militant Church, for which She was the affirmation and focus,” 44, the Mother of God lived until Her Dormition and Repose in Jerusalem, “in the divine and most glorious city of David.” “In it [this city] the Theologian, who took the Mother of God to himself, served Her in all the proper ways. This [city] - the mother of Churches throughout the universe - was the dwelling of the Mother of God... In it the blessed Virgin lay down on some happiest bed" (Usp. II, 4). About the all-glorious Dormition and miraculous Repose of the Mother of the Lord, St. John of Damascus preaches based on the “ancient and true tradition” of the Jerusalem Church (Usp. II, 4, 18), and describes in detail all the events and miracles that occurred both on the very day of the Dormition, and before and after it (mainly in Usp. II). We will touch upon three main topics touched upon by the Holy Father: the death of the Most Holy Theotokos, the burial of Her most pure body and its transfer to heaven. An undoubted fact is, according to Damascene, that the Mother of God was not exempt from the law of death, which is valid for all descendants of the old Adam. The Most Holy Theotokos really died, and only after death and burial Her immaculate soul and most pure body were taken to heaven by Her Son and Savior (Usp. I, 10-13; Usp. II, 2-18). Although She is the “source of Life,” yet She is “brought to life through death,” and although She “at the birth of [Her Son] rose above the limits of nature,” now She falls under its laws and Her most pure body is subject to death” (Usp. I, 10). As the daughter of the old Adam, She also “falls under the responsibility of the father” (Usp. II, 2), her “blessed soul is separated according to the laws of nature from the glorious and blameless body,” and the body itself “is given over to lawful burial” (Usp. I, 10). However, according to the inspired words of Metropolitan. Philaret (Drozdov), “the glory of eternal life has already begun to shine through the very death of the Blessed Virgin” 45 and therefore “what was formed from the earth returned to the earth again” (Usp. III, 3) only so that, “leaving the earthly and lightless burden of mortality” (ibid.), “putting aside what is mortal and putting on incorruption” (Usp. I, 10), into a spiritual body of incorruption shining with light (ibid.; cf.: Accurate iz. IV, 27). The recognition that the Dormition of the Mother of God was a true, real natural death, natural for the Orthodox theology of St. John of Damascus, raises intractable problems for Catholics in connection with their dogma of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary. For if She was not under original sin, then the question arises, how and why did She die? After all, death entered the world as a result of original sin (see: Rom. 5, 12; Exact iz. III, 27), and the Lord, “being sinless,” “was not subject to death,” but dies freely, as a Savior and Redeemer, accepting death for our sake” (Exact iz. III, 27). The newest Catholic dogma about the bodily ascension (more precisely, the taking - Assumptio) of the Mother of God into heaven (Bull “Minificentissimus” of Pope Pius XII of November 1, 1950) gives an ambiguous formulation that can refer to the transition of the Virgin Mary into heavenly life both through death and beyond it: “The Immaculate Mother of God, the Ever-Virgin Mary, having completed her journey earthly life, was taken with soul and body into heavenly glory" (§ XX): However, if we are consistent in relying on the dogma of the immaculate conception, Roman Catholic theologians either have to deny the very possibility of the death of the Mother of God (the so-called "immortalism"), which clearly contradicts the ancient tradition and, above all, the tradition of the "Mother of all Churches" (Usp. III, 4) - the Jerusalem Church, attested as St. John of Damascus, and other saints. The Fathers, or, if we take this fact into account (the so-called “mortalists”), all that remains is to proclaim the death of the Mother of God as atoning, and the Holy Virgin herself as the “Redemptress” or “Co-redemptrix” (Coredemptrix), as they have already spoken and written about this, and to which modern Catholic Mariology is generally inclined 46 . Regarding this last opinion, it will be enough to point out the categorical denial on the part of St. John of Damascus any thought about the redemptive nature of the death of the Mother of God. “We do not call Her a goddess, for we also proclaim Her death” (Usp. II, 15). The expression “to announce the death” of the Holy Virgin shows that She is not God and thus is not the Redeemer, for “not an angel, not an intercessor, but the Lord Himself will come and save us” (Rozhd., 4). But, affirming the natural nature of the death of the Mother of the Lord, at the same time St. John of Damascus confesses, together with another keeper of the Jerusalem tradition, St. Andrew of Crete 47 that the death of the Mother of God was “above us” (ὑπὲρ ἡμ ᾶ ς), as a result of the voluntary humiliation of Her Son. The Son of God came down from heaven and through the Blessed Virgin became a Man subject to death. Mary, having become the Mother of God, perceives, outside the general Resurrection and the Last Judgment, the “Godly glory” and is the first to participate in the fulfillment of the highest calling of created beings, the deification of creation. For, as Hieromonk Afanasy Yevtich writes, “the infinitely strong goodness of God’s original weakness” (Usp. III, 18) 48 of Her Son “renewed the nature” 49, truly “made everything new” (Apoc. 21, 5). This “weakness” of Him is precisely His saving and elevating exhaustion, His condescending incarnation and humility, His saving passion and life-giving death for us, but also above us. Thanks to precisely this “divine weakness” of Him, after the Resurrection, by which He destroyed the power of death, human nature clothed itself with immortality 50. “And I, a man, became deified, a mortal became immortal... I put off corruption from myself, and with the garment of the Divine I have incorruption on me” (Usp. II, 2), writes Damascene. Testimony to this is the saints - eternally living members of the Church of Christ, and before all His “Life-Giving Mother” (Usp. I, 5). If, according to the words of Damascus, for saints death is “the most beautiful departure that the coming to God grants” (Usp. I, 10) and if “this is given by God to all His faithful servants and all God-bearing people - and we believe that it is given” (Us. I, 10), then the death of the Mother of God 51 so surpasses the concept of “death” that it is no longer called “death,” but “dormition” (κοίμησις), “divine repose” (θεία μετάστασις), “accommodation with the Lord” (ἐνδημία) (Usp. I, 10; Usp. III, 10). If “death” is said, then it is “life-giving death” (θάνατος ζωηφόρος – Assumption II, 2) and “the beginning of the second being” (ἀρχὴ δευτέρας ὑπάρξεως ) – eternal. “Today, the treasure of life, the abyss of grace... is covered by life-giving death and She who in her womb carried the Destroyer of Death fearlessly approaches it, if at all it is permissible to call Her entire sacred and life-giving departure death. Indeed, how could the One who poured out true life on everyone become subject to death?” (Usp. II, 2). “How will death consume” the Most Blessed Virgin, “who became non-idle by the action of the [Holy] Spirit... who had the Father’s Favor in her womb, who conceived without pleasure and communication with her husband, the all-filling Hypostasis of God the Word... and who was completely united with God? How will hell accept Her inside? How does incorruption encroach on a life-receiving body? This is completely alien to Her God-bearing soul and body. Looking at Her, death was afraid, for from its attack on the Son, death learned from Her experience and, having already acquired this experience, became more prudent” (Usp. II, 3). That is why St. John of Damascus also transfers to the Mother of God the words of Scripture relating to Christ: “Your soul did not descend into hell, and your flesh did not see incorruption (Acts 2:21; Ps. 16:10). Your soul or your pure, all-immaculate body did not remain in the earth, but after Your repose you are installed in the heavenly royal abodes - Queen, Lady, Lady, Mother of God, True Mother of God” (Usp. I, 12). The realistic thinking of the West is trying to eliminate the antinomy of the life-giving death of the Mother of God through the new Vatican dogmas about “Immaculata conceptio” and about “Assumptio” (but without death), however, the veneration of the Virgin Mary resulting from these dogmas is that false glory that the Mother of God does not need. The true bliss and glory of the Mother of God is, according to Damascus, “the seedless conception, the divine indwelling and the incorruptible birth” of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. Therefore, “Her death is not something inglorious for Her, for Her Son has already passed through this path of death and, as God and Savior, destroyed death by death” (Usp. II, 1). He Himself, appearing in glory with all the holy angels, at the hour of the Dormition: His Mother “receives with the sovereign hands Her sacred soul” (Usp. I, II) and introduces it into “the original, true and heavenly Holy of Holies” (Usp. II, 12). This is, as it were, a precursor to the second glorious coming, which, however, is not the Last Judgment, for what is reposed directly, without judgment, passes from death to life, from time to eternity of the eighth day, from an earthly state to heavenly bliss. However, this is death as the separation of the soul from the body, which remains incorruptible in the tomb for three days 52. At the holy burial (Usp. I, 12) of this “life-giving and God-receiving body” (Usp. III, 4), again the Savior Himself, as “the new Solomon - the head of the world,” gathered in Jerusalem “all the heavenly ranks and the apostles of the New Testament ... with all the people of the Holy Disciples” (Usp. II, 12). “The glorious and immaculate body” (Usp. I, 10) “is laid in the all-glorious and wondrous tomb; and from there on the third day (“incorruptible” - Usp. I, 10) ascends into the heavenly abodes” (Usp. II, 14; Usp. III, 2, 4), that is, after these three days, the Mother of God was resurrected with Her body and with it ascended to heaven, of course not by her own power (as was the ascension of the Savior), but by the power of God, and since then She has already been glorified creation until its general Resurrection and glorification, the beginning of the spiritual re-creation of humanity. In Her face, to use the words of Vl. Lossky, “next to the uncreated Divine Hypostasis stands the deified human Hypostasis” 53. It should be noted here that St. John of Damascus, in three words on the Dormition, as the true tradition of the Jerusalem Church, confesses the ascension of the Mother of God into heaven in glorified flesh, agreeing in this with a host of other Holy Fathers: St. Modestus of Jerusalem, St. Andrew of Crete, St. Cosmas Mayumsky, St. Herman of Constantinople, St. Theodore the Studite, St. Gregory Palamas 54. The idea of ​​Her resurrection and ascension in the body to the heavenly abodes also runs through many hymns of the Feast of the Assumption 55 and is especially clearly expressed in the subsequent burial of the Mother of God 56 . Russian devotees of piety and theologians overwhelmingly accept this teaching as church teaching. Let us name here Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov 57, St. Righteous John of Kronstadt 58, Metropolitan of Moscow Philaret (Drozdov) 59, who for the Gethsemane monastery he established took care of translating from Greek the sequence of burial of the Mother of God and established after the Feast of the Dormition the feast of the Resurrection and Ascension of the Mother of God on August 17, 60, Archbishop Sergius (Spassky) 61, Patriarch Sergius (Stragorodsky) 62, under whom the burial rite became almost universal, Vl. N. Lossky 63, prot. Sergius Bulgakov 64, Archpriest Alexei Knyazev 65 (now rector of the Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris). True, there are objections against it from a number of Greek 66 and Russian theologians 67, but these objections mainly come from the reaction against the same Catholic teaching about the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin, with which Catholic theology connects the doctrine of the bodily ascension, and, perhaps, caused by the polemical nature of the works in which they are contained. Convincing criticism of the arguments of theologians of this direction can be found in the above-mentioned book by Archpriest. Sergius Bulgakov 68. This essay, of course, does not cover all aspects of the theological teaching of St. John of Damascus about the Most Holy Theotokos, Much could be added about the Most Blessed Virgin from the sermons of Damascus and from the worship of our Church, for which this Holy Father composed so many hymns, and in which the magnification, glorification and thanksgiving to the Most Holy Theotokos never ends, for “the honor given to Her goes back to the Son incarnate from Her” (Exact iz. IV, 16; Usp. I, 14). Above were only the main themes of the sermons of St. John of Damascus on the feasts of the Mother of God, and all of them have as their center “the only news under the sun” (Rozh., 2; Dormition I, 9), “the main miracle” (Rozh., 2) of God, “the great sacrament of piety” (1 Tim. 3:15) - the saving incarnation of the Son of God “from the Holy Spirit and holy Mary - the Ever-Virgin and Mother of God” (Accurate iz. III, 1). Russian translation from the edition: Complete collection of works of St. John of Damascus. T. I. St. Petersburg, 1913, p. 409–410. Jerome. Afanasy (Ievtich). Teaching about the Most Holy Theotokos by St. John of Damascus // Orthodox thought. Vol. 14. Paris, 1971, p. 40. Wed. at St. Athanasius the Great: “The whole purpose and the whole peculiarity of Holy Scripture is that in it, as we have often pointed out, the promise of the Savior is twofold: firstly, that He was always God and the Son and the Radiance and Wisdom of the Father; and, secondly, that he then took us for the sake of flesh from the Virgin and Mother of God Mary and became a man” (Against the Arians III, 29. PG 26, 385). See more details in the article by Vl. Lossky “All-Holy” (JMP, 1968, pp. 65–66). Wed. Sunday Dogmatist, tone 8, written by Damascene: “There is one Son, by nature, but not by hypostasis. In the same way, the perfection of that God and the perfection of man, truly preaching, we confess Christ our God; Pray to Him, Brideless Mother, to have mercy on our souls.” Wed. testimony of St. Cyril of Alexandria, who, perhaps more than anyone else, fought in defense of the Orthodox faith about the Mother of God, but still said: “We have never considered any of the creatures to be Divine, for we have been taught to consider God as One by nature and true; we know the blessed Virgin as a person, just like us” (Against Nestorius I, 10. PG 76, 57). Jerome. Afanasy Ievtich. uk. cit., p. 55. St. Photius of Constantinople. Homilia 9, for the Nativity of St. Mother of God, 9 (Φωτίου Ὁ μίλιαι., Θεσσαλονίκη, 1959, σ. 96). St. Photius of Constantinople. Right there. Russian translation according to the publication: “Church Sermon on the Twelve Feasts.” Comp. P. Smirnov. Part 1. Kyiv, 1904, p. 672. St. John of Damascus. About the genealogy of the Lord and about the Holy Mother of God // Christian reading, 1841, part I, p. 389. Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky). Veneration of the Mother of God according to the mind of the Holy Orthodox Church // ZhMP, 1973, No. 9, p. 60. See also: Homily on the withered fig tree, 3 (РG 96, 581); Homily for Holy Saturday, 24 (PG 96, 624). Lossky Vl. Uk. cit., p. 69. Rev. Maxim the Confessor. Questions and answers to Thalassia, 54. PG 90, 528. Cf. at St. Damascene: “What is done under compulsion is not virtue” (Part II, 12). Wed. at St. Epiphany of Cyprus: “She was born only by human nature, like everyone else, from the seed of a man and the womb of a woman” (PG 42, 748). St. Andrew of Crete in the First Sermon on the Dormition says: “And if the truth must be told, natural human death has reached it” (PG 97, 1052). Wed. at St. Athanasius the Great: “Mary is our sister, since we are all from Adam” (PG 26, 1061). See: Jugie M. S. Jean DamascѴ04;ne et l’ImmaculѴ04;e Conception, Bessarione, 1923, p. 1–7; Chevalier S. La mariologie de S. Jean DamascѴ04;ne // Orientalia Christiana analecta, 1936, 109, p. 140 et seq.; Voulet R. Introductory article in the publication of the sermons of Damascus, SC, No. 80, p. 20. Bull "Ineffabilis Deus" of Pope Pius IX of December 8, 1854 Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky). Uk. cit., p. 60. Ἰ ερομ. Ἀθανάσιος Γιέβτιτς. Ελσαγωγή, ἐν Ἀγίου Ἰ ωάννου Δαμασκηνοῦ. Ἡ Θεοτόκος. Ἀθῆναι, 1970, a. 33. See more about this in the book: Merzlyukin A. S. On the Catholic Dogma of 1854. Paris, 1960. p. 16, 20, etc. See: Archim. Justin Popovich. Dogmatics of the Orthodox Church, vol. II. Beograd, 1980, p. 256–261. Prot. Sergius Bulgakov. Burning Bush. Paris, 1927, p. 237. Questions and answers to Thalassia, question. 21, 42. РG 90, 312–316, 405–408. Speaking about corruption, especially against the heresy of the Aphthartodocetes, St. John of Damascus makes a distinction between "corruption" proper (φθορά) and "incorruption" (διαφθορά). “The name corruption means two things. On the one hand, it denotes the following human passions: hunger, thirst, drowning, piercing nails, death, that is, the separation of the soul from the body, and the like. In accordance with this meaning, we say that the body of the Lord was subject to corruption. For He accepted all this voluntarily. But corruption also means the complete dissolution of the body into the elements of which it is composed and destruction, which many would better call incorruption. The body of the Lord did not recognize this experience” (Accurate iz. III, 28). Against the Aftartodokets, who taught that at the moment of conception the body of the Blessed Virgin Mary was, so to speak, “re-elemented,” “changed in relation to its constituent elements” (μετεστοιχειώθη), and She became “incorruptible” (ἄφθταρτος) by the invasion of the Holy Spirit. Leontius of Byzantium wrote the following: “Honoring the Virgin more than they should, they did not take into account the absurdity (ἀτοπιάν) that arises from this... After all, if, as follows from their opinion, the Virgin became incorruptible by the invasion of the Spirit, then, of course, the root of the immortality of our race would be She, and not the divine branch that grew from Her” (RG 86, 1325–1328). These words written in the beginning. VII century, and today they sound with all their force, denouncing the Roman Catholics with their teaching about the “Immaculata conceptio”. (Let us note in parentheses that a number of modern researchers prefer to talk about the “Leontief Corpus” and its two authors: Leontius of Jerusalem and Leontius of Byzantium. See: Sidorov A.I. John the Grammar of Caesarea // Viz. Vremnik, 1988, vol. 49, pp. 81–99.) Prot. Sergius Bulgakov. Burning Bush. Paris. 1927, p. 70. See also: Lossky Vl. All-Holy // ZhMP, 1968, No. 1, p. 69–70. Rev. Simeon the New Theologian. Ethical. X., SС. No. 129, r. 262. Wed. at St. Ignatius Bryachaninov: “The holy parents of the Mother of God, who were in advanced years, having humbled their flesh through many and long-lasting deeds, did not, therefore, during marital copulation undergo those strong passionate sensations that are inevitable for people in blossoming years and strength, in a mood of soul far removed from the pious mood in which the righteous Joachim and Anna were” (Works, vol. IV. St. Petersburg, 1905, p. 406). St. Andrew of Crete. Homily for the Nativity of the Virgin Mary (PG 97, 818). Hieromonk Afanasy Ievtich. Uk. cit., p. 49. Words and speeches. T. II. M., 1879, p. 64–65. St. Gregory Palamas. Homilia 37, on the Assumption (PG 151, 472). Wed. from him: “But who loved God more than the Virgin we glorify? Who on God’s side was loved more than Her?” (Homilia 53, on Introduction to the Church. Ἔ κδ . Οἰκονόμου , p. 177). See more in the book: Prot. Sergius Bulgakov. Burning Bush. Paris, 1927, p. 115–117. St. Gregory Palamas. Word on the Entry into the Church. Ἔκδ. Οἰκονόμου, p. 178. See, for example, in his book “The Path of Knowledge of God.” Beograd, 1987, p. 82 et seq. See also: Lossky Vl. Mystical theology of the Eastern Church // Theological Works, No. 8. M., 1972, p. 75. (РG 96, 1356). Wed. at St. Basil of Seleucia: “a mystery has been accomplished, which remains a mystery to this day and will never cease to be a mystery” (Sermon on the Annunciation; PG 85, 445). Wed. at St. Proclus of Constantinople, who, in response to the question of the Jews: “What are you offering me, that a Woman could give birth to God?” - answers: “I don’t tell you that a woman could give birth to God, but that God could, having become incarnate, be born of a woman: for all things are possible with Him” (Homily II on the Incarnation of the Lord. PG 65, 697). Lenten Triodion. Compline on Monday of the 1st Week, Great Canon of St. Andrey Kritsky. Song 4, Theotokos. Wed. Sunday Dogmatist 7 Tone, creation of Damascus: “Thou art known to the Mother, more than the nature of the Mother of God; Thou art the Virgin who is greater than words and reason, and the tongue cannot express the miracles of Thy Nativity. I am glorified for the essence of conception, Pure, the image of birth is incomprehensible: where God wills, the order of nature is overcome.” Metropolitan of Moscow Philaret (Drozdov) wrote that at the Cross “the abyss of Her suffering did not overwhelm or drown Her, constantly falling into the equally immeasurable abyss of Her patience, humility, faith, hope, unconditional devotion to the destinies of God” (Words and speeches. 1844, vol. 1, p. 442). See, for example, Octoechos, Tone I, on Thursday evening, the Theotokos of the Cross: “Sometimes seeing the undefiled virgin on the tree, Who from the seedless womb gave birth, not enduring the wound of the womb, tormenting the hair with the verb: who with a wave contain the whole creation, as if you were erected on the cross, as if you were condemned, in every way to save humanity.” Prot. Sergius Bulgakov. Burning Bush. Paris, 1927, p. 115–116. Words and speeches. T. 5. M., 1885, p. 21–22. See the article “Maria” by prof. I. Kalogiru (Ἰ. Καλογήρου) in “Θρησκευτικὴ καὶ Ἠ θικὴ Ἐγκυκλοπαιδεία “, vol. 8, 676–6, 1965; also: Bishop Vasily (Doroshkevich). Roman Catholic Mariology, 1961, pp. 86–136. “For if, according to Scripture, there is no man who will live and not see death, but man is above man and is now the Virgin praised by us, then it is clearly shown that She fulfilled the same law of nature, although not in the same way as us, but above us” (Homily 12, on the Dormition. PG 97, 1053). See note. 380 to Usp. ΙΙ. The expression of St. Gregory the Theologian (PG 36, 348). Jerome. Afanasy Yevtich. Uk. cit., p. 52. After all, “the difference between the servants of God and His Mother is immeasurable” (Usp. I, 10). As Rev. writes. Sergius Bulgakov, the death of the Mother of God is fundamentally “different from the three-day sabbath in the tomb of the Savior, which was an active state beyond the tomb, a sermon in hell, a necessary part of the saving feat. Here, however, this is a human destiny, which could not be avoided in order to be freed from the mortal body and put on the body of the Resurrection” (Uk. cit., pp. 124–125). Archimandrite Alexy (Kutepov). Patristic teaching about the Mother of God. Zagorsk, 1979, p. 99–108. Lossky Vl. All-Holy // ZhMP, 1968, No. 1, p. 72. Quotes from the works of most of the listed saints. For fathers, see the relevant paragraphs of the commentary. See also: Silchenkov K. Feast of the Dormition of the Mother of God // Faith and Reason, 1901, No. 14, p. 120–132. See, for example, Akathist to the Dormition of the Theotokos (compiled, by the way, in the 14th century by the Hesychast Patriarch of Constantinople Isidore Bukhir), Ikos 8: Rejoice, even the most luminous soul dwells in the highest, all-bright Zion. Rejoice, even as the incorruptible body and soul are collectively glorified. See more in the book: Prot. Sergius Bulgakov. Uk. cit., p. 125–127. Exposition of the teaching of the Orthodox Church about the Mother of God. In the book: Works. T. IV. St. Petersburg:, 1905, p. 428. Complete works. T. I. St. Petersburg, 1911, p. 468. From the Word on the Dormition of the Mother of God. Of his 16 sermons on the Feast of the Assumption, we will point out the two most characteristic: Conversation on the Feast of the Assumption and on the third day of the appearance of the Mother of God to the Apostles (Words and speeches. T. 5. M., 1885, pp. 163–166); Word on the Day of the Assumption (Ibid. T. 3. M., 1877, pp. 193–200. See in the book: M. Skaballanovich. Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Kyiv, 1916, p. 99. Complete months of the East. T. II. Vladimir, 1901. Here we read: “Without a doubt, the faith of Christians in the ascension of the Mother of God into heaven is the truth. If Enoch from the antediluvian world and the prophet Elijah from the under-the-law world were caught up to heaven in the flesh, is the most pure flesh, more honorable than the cherubim and more glorious than the seraphim, given over to corruption? There is no part of the relics of the Mother of God in any corner of the Christian world; this is because the belief in ascending to heaven with pure flesh is very ancient, contemporary with the apostles and martyrs.” See: All-Holy // ZhMP, 1961, No. 1, p. 65–73, as well as his own: The Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary // ZhMP, 1974, No. 8, p. 77–78. Burning Bush. Paris, 1927; Words, teachings, conversations. Paris, 1987, p. 351–360 (“Ascension of Our Lady”). The great sign of the Kingdom of Heaven and its coming in power // Orthodox thought. Paris, 1971, issue. 14, p. 62–83. See: Prot. Vladimir Sorokin. Dogma about the taking of the Mother of God into Heavenly glory // Theological works. No. 10. M., 1973, p. 88. Prot. (now Archbishop) Mikhail Mudyugin. Orthodox interpretation of the development of Roman Catholic Mariology over the last century // Bulletin of Russian, Western-European. Patr. Exarchate, 1966, No. 53, p. 35–45; No. 54–55, p. 123–138; Ep. Vasily (Doroshkevich). Roman Catholic Mariology. Zagorsk, 1961.