The following is an chapter from the book "O Full of Grace Glory to Thee" written by Igumen Gregory (Zaiens):
In recent years, among some teachers in our Holy Orthodox Church, a question has been opened in reference to the Theotokos: Did the Theotokos sin? How did the question arise? What has been the accepted opinion of the consciousness of the Church on this matter? Through the prayers of the All-holy Theotokos an attempt shall now be made to formulate an answer to these questions.
An Orthodox nun once gave a talk in which she spoke of the Sinlessness of the Mother of God. It happened that a clergy-man present remarked that this was false, and that, in fact, St. John Chrysostom and others of the early Church Fathers said she sinned. On being questioned about this afterwards, this clergyman offered to send the inquirer a paper he wrote while in semunary that treated this subject. Basically, all the sources were referred to were modern Roman Catholic scholars making reference to early Church Fathers. This is where I believe we discover one source of the problem. We must therefore, consider the differences between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic view of the Theotokos, and to do so, we must first discuss their conflicting views of "original" or "ancestral" sin.
The concept of the sinlessness of the Theotokos is an ancient belief of the Church dating from before the "Great Schism" of 1054. In Roman Catholicism there is a dogma that was formulated much later (1854) termed the "Immaculate Conception." Although Roman Catholics claim that this is an ancient belief that was formally declared dogma in the nineteenth century, it is unknown in the history of Orthodoxy. We know that the Mother of God was born of a woman who had been barren and so, God's hand was present in the conception and birth of the Theotokos, which was according to human nature. But to this, Roman Catholicism adds that she was conceived in such a supernatural and "immaculate" way that she didnt suffer from the effects of the fall of Adam. It is a misunderstanding of the consequence of the fall of Adam to his descendants that is at the root of this error.
The sin of our forefathers or first-parents - as "ancestral" is literally translated from the Greek - of course, had an effect upon all mankind. The Blessed Augustine, who set the pace for Roman Catholic doctrine on this subject, clung to the erroneous opinion that Adam's personal guilt is inherited by all his descendants and therefore, so also is the responsibility and punishment for his sin. It was in reaction to an error on the other extreme, which came to be called Pelagianism that he expressed this opinion in his preaching and writing. Pelagius was a British theologian who taught in Rome in the late 4th and early 5th centuries. Pelagianism reduced the effect of the fall by saying that the sin of Adam had no effect on his descendants, and the more extreme Pelagians denied any transmission of ancestral sin.
In both of these errors there is a confusion of person and nature in the human being. If while examining ancestral sin, we build the foundation of our theology on human nature alone, we shall have the Augustinian conclusion. This makes the human nature, which is common to all mankind, the bearer of Adam's guilt and a co-participant in the responsibility for his sin. The Pelagians rightly teach that only the person effects sin and that each particular person shall be accountable of the guilt of his own sins. However, in overlooking human nature, and focusing solely upon person, they incorrectly conclude that the sin of Adam had no effect on the human nature in which all his descendats share.
So what is the Orthodox teaching on this subjects? Namely, that we inherit the effect of the personal sin of Adam upon his human nature, a nature that is common to all of us. This results in a distortion of man’s being, since there is a certain hierarchy in man, in which the reasoning power of the soul should rule over the other powers, the desiring and incensive. However, with the fall, this hierarchy is turned upside down, and the reasoning power is enslaved to the other two powers of the soul, thus, the soul becomes a slave to the passions. This state is a state of separation from God and therefore a state of sin, a condition in which we are all born. So it is this, along with the death of the body, that we inherit from Adam.
However, the Roman Catholic concept of original sin is not compatible with this teaching. Therefore, in considering the Theotokos sinless, the doctrine of the Immaculate Concepction is a necessity. I reiterate that in their teaching, the Theotokos was conceived and born in an "immaculate" way, with the result that she was exempt from the effect of the sin of Adam upon human nature as found in all his descendants. Therefore, they concluded that she was born in the state of Adam before the fall, and was thus placed on a pedestal above sin. This is not so from the Orthodox viewpoint. Although we believe the Theotokos had no actual sin, she was born, as were all the descendants of Adam, with the effect of sin upon her human nature. Yet she was brought into the temple at the young age of three, and there she led a life of prayer, fasting and study of the Scriptures. She struggled with the effect of sin upon her human nature and she overcame it. In this respect, she was victorious and did not sin, even though she bore the nature of fallen man.
In the citations of the above-mentioned paper of the clergyman, where the sinlessness of the Theotokos was in question, the early Church Fathers were basically speaking of her struggles at the Cross. They express the opinions to the effect that she was confused, in pain, and suffered emotionally. Beholding her Son on the Cross it could be concluded that she was attacked with doubts as to who her Son was. For the Orthodox all this is not sin, but rather the struggle of our human nature against sin. In this case, it is especially true when we consider the fact that complete knowledge was not given until the Ressurrection and Pentecost. However, when you have the Roman Catholic concept of the "Immaculate Conception," which puts her above the natural human struggle, and then read such things from the Fathers, it could be concluded that these things are sin. This is what is seen in some more recent Western scholarship. In America, we have limited books available in English by Orthodox authors; many times students in our theological schools must refer to non-Orthodox sources for information, and so they often encounter such non-Orthodox opinions.
As we have responded to the erroneus assertion that a number of early Church Fathers teach that the Theotokos had sinned, we must also address the remark by the above mentioned clergyman concerning St. John Chrysostom. The passage of St. John in question is found in his 45th Homily on the Gospel of St. Matthew. The passage he preached on was chapter 12, verses 46 to 49; they read: "While He yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and His brethen stood without, desiring to speak with Him. Then one said unto Him, Behold, Thy mother and Thy brethen stand without, desiring to speak with Thee. But He answered and said unto him that told Him, Who is my mother and my brethren? And He stretched forth His hands towards His disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren."
In his homily, Chrysostom makes the following comment "that which she [the Theotokos] essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she had power and authority over her Son." [1] Further on, in speaking of Christ's Mother and His brethren St. John says that "they were vainglorious." [2] This comment of Chrysostom was once discussed by a renowned Athonite scholar, Father Theocletos of the Monastery of Dionysiou. Father Theocletos commented, "Chrysostom was a great ascetic and spiritual man, deep in the Holy Spirit. He was a contemplative thinker who sought to pierce into the meaning of things. So he was considering this passage and seeking to penetrate into its meaning. And he was thinking: Is it possible that the Mother of our Lord was moved by the passion of vainglory?" -- Here Father Theocletos was speaking as in the person of St. John, and he paused here for a moment, making a gesture as though he were in deep thought considering some issue, and then he continued -- "Well, perhaps." Then he abruptly continued, "But why do we even discuss these things? We know what the Church teaches!" [3]
"We know what the Church teaches!" The question at hand should not be, “Has the Theotokos sinned?" but, “why hasn't the Church passed some judgment on these words of St. John Chrysostom?" The answer is because it was only during the Christological controversies, which began on a full scale after the death of St. John, that the position of the Theotokos was defined. Therefore, it would not be just or fair-minded to pass judgment in such a situation. In addition, we should consider more exactly the situation in which this homily was delivered. The homilies of Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. Matthew were given in Antioch, and probably in the latter part of the period in which he preached as a presbyter. [4] At that time "Chrysostom preached Sunday after Sunday and during Lent, sometimes twice or oftener during the week, even five days in succession." [5] He “often preached without a written text to the faithful in Church ... Therefore, as John preached skilled scribes wrote down what he said." [6] So it was under these conditions, and with the purpose of a moral theme and not theology, that St. John made this comment. Should we judge Chrysostom for this comment, or should we hold him to it? Did the Church define her position on this during his life? Did he have opportunity to change his view?
Mary was held in admiration by all the people of Israel; and when she was three years old, she walked with a step so mature, she spoke so perfectly, and spent her time so assiduously in the praises of God that all were astonished at her and wondered... She was so constant in prayer, and her appearance was so beautiful and glorious, that scarcely anyone could look into her face... And this was the order that she had set for herself: From the morning to the third hour she remained in prayer; from the third to the ninth she was occupied with weaving; and from the ninth she again applied herself to prayer. She did not retire from praying until there appeared to her an angel of the Lord from whose hand she used to receive food; and thus she became more and more perfect in the work of God. Then, when the older virgins rested from the praises of God, she did not rest at all; so that in the praises and vigils of God none were found before her, no one more learned in the wisdom of the law of God, more lowly in humility, more elegant in singing, more perfect in all virtue. She was indeed steadfast, immovable, unchangeable, and daily advancing to perfection... She was always engaged in prayer and searching the law.... (8)
chose to live in solitude out of the sight of all, inside the sanctuary. There, having loosed every bond with material things, shaken off every tie and even risen above sympathy towards her own body, she united her mind with its inclination to turn within itself, with attention and unceasing holy prayer. Having become her own mistress by this means, and being established above the jumble of thoughts in all their different guises, and above absolutely every form of being, she constructed a new, indescribable way to heaven, which could be called silence of mind. Intent upon this silence, she flew high above all created things, saw God’s glory more clearly than Moses (cf. Exod. 33:18-23), and beheld divine grace. Such experiences are completely beyond the scope of men’s senses, but they are a gracious and holy sight for spotless souls and minds. (9)
So then, according to St. Gregory Palamas, our Most Pure Lady while dwelling in the Temple, through “unceasing holy prayer” ascended to a great spiritual height formerly unknown. In speaking of the experience of struggling in such prayer and the fruit it conveys he writes:
It is through contemplation that a person is made divine, not by speculative analogies on the basis of skillful reasoning and observations – perish the thought (this is something base and human) – but under the guidance of stillness. Continuing in our life’s upper room (cf. Acts 1:13-14), as it were in prayers and supplications night and day, in some way we touch that blessed nature that cannot be touched.Thus the light beyond our perception and understanding is diffused ineffably within those whose hearts have been purified by holy stillness, and they see God within themselves as in a mirror (cf. 2Cor. 3:18). (10)
So Mary acquired a unique intimacy with God that prepared her to become His dwelling place. It is no wonder that, having attained to such a state, when she was obliged to leave the Temple and marry, she vowed a life of virginity. For how could one who was thus united with God unite herself with a man! And such is the power of the interior prayer which the Mother of God attained to, that it was this divine action that kept her free from sin throughout her entire life.
Although this may seem hard to believe, yet through “unceasing holy prayer” — to use the terminology of St. Gregory — Mary, the Mother of God, accomplished this. But why is this prayer designated “holy” and why does St. Gregory say “it is through contemplation that a person is made divine”? In order to answer this and conclude our discussion let us define both prayer and its stages. This will properly illustrate the power of grace-filled prayer, the same power that kept the Theotokos free from sin.
Archimandrite Sophrony gives us an outline of the stages in prayer when, in reference to the Jesus Prayer, he writes:
It is possible to establish a certain sequence in the development of this prayer. First, it is a verbal matter: we say the prayer with our lips while trying to concentrate our attention on the Name and the words. Next, we no longer move our lips but pronounce the Name of Jesus Christ, and what follows after, in our minds, mentally. In the third stage mind and heart combine to act together: the attention of the mind is centered in the heart and the prayer said there. Fourthly, the prayer becomes self-propelling. This happens when the prayer is confirmed in the heart and, with no especial effort on our part, continues there, where the mind is concentrated. Finally, the prayer, so full of blessing, starts to act like a gentle flame within us, as an inspiration from on High, rejoicing the heart with a sensation of divine love and delighting the mind in spiritual contemplation. This last state is sometimes accompanied by a vision of Light. (11)
Bishop Kallistos Ware gives us a number of definitions of prayer which have some relation to the stages explained above. He first refers to a definition in an English dictionary that describes prayer as “a solemn request to God.” (12) This can correspond to the first two stages spoken of by Archimandrite Sophrony. Prayer being described as an act of petition of man to God can be either verbalized or pronounced in one’s mind. In a second definition he quotes St. Theophan the Recluse, who says concerning prayer that “the principle thing is to stand before God with the mind in the heart, and to go on standing before Him unceasingly day and night until the end of life.” (13) Bishop Kallistos points out that to pray “is no longer to ask for things,” but it is “to stand before God, to enter into an immediate and personal relationship with Him.” (14) This can correspond with the third stage mentioned above, yet this is still predominantly an action initiated by man. As Bishop Kallistos continues, “stress is laid primarily on what is done by man rather than God.” (15) The third definition given by Bishop Kallistos relates to the fourth and fifth states spoken of by Archimandrite Sophrony. He quotes St. Gregory of Sinai who says, “‘Prayer is God, who works all things in all men' (16) — it is not something which I initiate but in which I share; it is not primarily something which I do but which God is doing in me — it is to cease doing things on our own and to enter into the action of God.” (17) It is this stage of prayer that is a participation in the action or energy or life of God that many of our Holy Fathers reached and brought to a degree of perfection through their asceticism. The end of this state is a “manifestation of baptism”, (18) it is a birth from God; therefore it is a new beginning, a new mode of life in which the grace of the Holy Spirit is perceptible and operative. This is the birth and stage of grace that John the Theologian writes of when he says: “No one born of God commits sin; for God’s nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God.” (19) So this is why unceasing prayer can be called “holy” and contemplation can be said to make a person “divine”.
What then can we say about the spiritual stature of the Theotokos? What spiritual height did Mary, the Theotokos, acquire while living in the Temple? She was brought there at the young age of three, providentially guarded from the temptations of this world, lived in strict asceticism and was nourished with the Scriptures and with prayer to God. And at the time of the Annunciation, when the “Holy Spirit came upon her and the power of the most High overshadowed her” (20), to what state of purity and grace was she raised? It is beyond our comprehension. We can only marvel at the state of the grace of the Holy Spirit which she acquired and with which she was endowed. It was the power of this grace of the Holy Spirit that prepared her to be the all-pure and all-holy dwelling place of God and that kept her free from sin all her days.
How then can we as Orthodox allow ourselves to welcome or entertain speculations of those outside the Church? We must live within the Holy Tradition of our Church. This living within tradition has been superbly described by Vladimir Lossky when he said that "to be within the Tradition, is to keep the living truth in the Light of the Holy Spirit" (21) The Mother of God is our "Victorious Leader"(22), who shared in our fallen human nature but did not succumb to sin through human weakness. She struggled against sin and overcame it. She is the prototype of the life of a monastic, being the mother and foundress of the path of interior prayer and stillness. In cultivating these ascetic practices, she reached such a state of purity that God chose her to be His mother according to the flesh. She thus became the Mediatress between heaven and earth, and our "Victorious Leader.” As mother she shared in the suffering and Cross of her Son and our God, and by bearing this cross, she was brought to higher state of perfection. Thus she is our model for struggles, and again, our "Victorious Leader.” O Theotokos, "as Thou dost possess invincible might, set us free from every calamity, that we may cry to Thee: Rejoice, O Bride unwedded."(23)
Endnotes
(1) The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1956, Vol. X, pg. 279.
(2) Ibid.
(3) This is a quote from a conversation between Fr. Theocletos and the author in 1992 at the holy Monastery of Dionysiou on the Holy Mountain.
(4) The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids Michigan. 1956, Vol. X pg ix.
(5) The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, WM. B. Eerdmans, Publishing Company, Grand Rapids Michigan, 1956, Vol. IX pg. 11.
(6) The Great Collection of the Live of Saints. Chrysostom Press House Springs, Missouri, 1997 Vol. III: November, pg. 262.
(7) Saint Silouan the Athonite, Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov), trans. Rosemary Edmons, Stavropegic Monastery of St. John the Baptist, Essex, England pg. 392.
(8) The Ante-Nicene Fathers. VIII, WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids Michigan, 1956, p. 371.
(9) Mary the Mother of God, Sermons by Saint Gregory Palamas, edited by Christopher Veniamin, Mount Thabor Publishing, South Canaan, PA, 2005, pg, 47 (see also, Little Russian Philokalia, Vol. IV: St. Paisius Velichkovsky, St. Herman Press * St. Paisius Abbey Press, 1994, pgs. 33-34).
(10) Ibid. pgs, 43-44, (see also, Litlle Russian Philokalia IV; St. Paisius Velichkovsky, St. Herman Press * St. Paisius Abbey Press, 1994, pg. 33).
(11) His Life Is Mine, Archmandrite Sophrony (Sakharov), trans. Rosemary Edmonds, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, Crestwood, New York, 1977, pg. 113.
(12) The Power of the Name, Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia, (Oxford: SGL Press, 1986), p. 1.
(13) Ibid, pg. 1.
(14) Ibid. pg. 1.
(15) Ibid. pg. 1.
(16) Ibid. pg. 2.
(17) Ibid. pg. 2.
(18) Ibid. pg. 2.
(19) 1 John 3.9.
(20) Luke 1. 35.
(21) The Meaning of Icons, Leonid Ouspensky & Vladimir Lossky, trans. G. E. H. Palmer & E. Kadloubovsky, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press Revised Edition, Crestwood, New York, 1982, pg. 19.
(22) Kontakion of the Annunciation, trans., Book of Canons, St. Tikhon's Seminary Press, Very Rev, Theodore Heckman, pg 89.
(23) Ibid. pgs. 89-90.
