The Byzantine View of Mary

[Ghosty]

I am not so sure that I can fully agree, because statements from the fathers, just like the scriptures, need to be read in context of the liturgical life of the Church, and the liturgical life of the Church makes it clear that she is to be honored for her role in the incarnation, which alone sets her apart from the rest of creation, and sets her above the angels and all other men. There is an entire liturgical and historical context (one with which Gregory Palamas would have been most familiar), in which this sermon must be read. I must contend that in the case of this sermon, as is true of certain scriptural passages (like calling the Son of God the first-born of creation), the most obvious reading at the surface-level is not the correct interpretation of the passage.

I’m well aware of the context of Palamas’ writings, and there is simply no way you can get from this Homily anything other than the notion that Mary dispenses Grace right now. It is not merely a poetic reference to her role in the Incarnation; through devotion to her in the here and now the Faithful receive Grace.

Yes, this role is due to her being the Theotokos, but these words can’t be reduced to simply referring to her bearing Christ. This square peg simply can’t be rounded in that manner. It would be better for you to simply say you disagree with Palamas on this, rather than to try and reduce his words to something they simply can’t be.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Cavaradossi]

I’m well aware of the context of Palamas’ writings, and there is simply no way you can get from this Homily anything other than the notion that Mary dispenses Grace right now. It is not merely a poetic reference to her role in the Incarnation; through devotion to her in the here and now the Faithful receive Grace.

Yes, this role is due to her being the Theotokos, but these words can’t be reduced to simply referring to her bearing Christ. This square peg simply can’t be rounded in that manner. It would be better for you to simply say you disagree with Palamas on this, rather than to try and reduce his words to something they simply can’t be.

Peace and God bless!

But that sort of argument has never historically been accepted by the Church. Arianism is more compatible with a similar surface reading of the scriptures. It is only by virtue of the liturgical life of the Church, as St. Basil taught, that orthodox Christians could know that the Arians were misreading the Scriptures. This was in fact so apparent to him that St. Basil rejected all Arianizing formulae which claimed to understand Christ ‘according to the scriptures,’ because claiming to understand things ‘according to the scriptures’ is meaningless since the scriptures can be interpreted in any fashion.

I don’t need to say that I disagree with Palamas any more than the Nicene Christians needed to say that they disagreed with the God-breathed Scriptures written through Saint Paul, when they denied that the most obvious reading of the Son being ‘the firstborn of creation’—namely that the Son is therefore of creation and not uncreated—was the correct reading of that verse. They knew that this reading was incorrect because nowhere in the life of Church could such teachings on the Son’s createdness be found. Likewise, Palamas can only be read in virtue of earlier liturgical and devotional affirmations made pertaining to the Virgin, which have always centered on magnifying the significance of the Incarnation as the great cosmic event of God’s divine condescension towards man.

Of course, I do not deny that the Virgin dispenses grace, as do all of the saints who do so through our common communion with our Master and Lord Jesus Christ, but that she can be said to be the dispenser of **all **grace in any context other than that of the Incarnation is not a sense which is to be found in the mind of the Tradition of the Church. For example, when Gregory Palamas writes, “Therefore, She is the only boundary between created and uncreated nature, and no one can come to God unless they are illumined through Her, the Lamp truly radiant with divinity,” should we therefore understand this literally? God forbid, that would put him at odds with St. Paul, St. Cyril, St. Maximus and many others, who all affirmed that the only boundary between the created and the uncreated is Jesus Christ, in whom the human nature is forever united with the divine nature, providing for the deification and sanctification of man. This is why the Apostle Paul wrote, “there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” How then should this be understood? Gregory Palamas already provides the answer, writing immediately before:It is only through Her that they, and we, are united to God, and touch the Intangible. Isaiah shows this clearly: he saw that the Seraphim did not take the coal from the altar directly, but held it with tongs, by which he touched the coal to the lips of the prophet to purify them (Is. 6: 6).

Moses saw the tongs of Isaiah’s great vision when he beheld the bush burning with fire, yet not consumed (Ex. 3: 2). Who does not know that this bush and these tongs are the Virgin Mother? She conceived the fire of Divinity (Him Who takes away the sins of the world) without being burned, although the Archangel was present at the Conception. Through Her He was joined to the human race, cleansing us through this inexplicable union.
See how clearly he links these two thoughts. Because the Mother of God bore God in the flesh, she therefore can be said to be the only boundary between the created and uncreated, because only through her synergy with God was the incarnation and eternal union between the created and uncreated accomplished. But to extend this and similar affirmations to her beyond the context of the Incarnation (and in the case of affirmations like ‘she possesses all that Christ has,’ beyond the context of deification, for St. Maximus the Confessor defines the deification of man in exactly this manner, to have by grace all that God has by nature) is to step outside of the context provided by the Tradition, and even by Gregory Palamas himself. At this point, however, I do not think that either of us will be convinced. Perhaps it is better simply to disagree.

 

[Ghosty]

Sorry, but what you’re saying just doesn’t fly with what Palamas said. You keep saying that this interpretation doesn’t fit with the tradition of the Church, but you aren’t showing anything at all to back this up. Palamas is quite clear that he regards Mary as the dispenser of all blessings right now, as Queen of Heaven. I’m all for variant understanding of words, but yours simply can’t be applied to what he said.

When he speaks of her being the boundary between the created and the Uncreated, it is clear from context that he’s speaking of the Incarnation because that is what he talks about around that statement. There is no context that supports your assertion, however, that he somehow means something other than her “dispensing all blessings” from Heaven now. There is simply no way that this statement:

After death, she has found immortality, and in Her body dwells in Heaven together with Her Son and God. Therefore, She pours forth abundant grace on those honoring Her. She even bestows on us the boldness to hasten unto Her, for She is the vessel of so many graces. She distributes blessings generously on us, and never ceases this profitable bestowal and gracious help.

can be read and understood in the manner you propose. It clearly speaks of her after death, dwelling in Heaven, bestowing Grace on us. Furthermore, he says:

Thus, since through Her alone did He Who “appeared upon earth and lived among mankind” (Baruch 3: 38), come unto us, being invisible to all before this time, so in the age to come, without Her intercession… every form of spiritual gift would be beyond the capacity of created beings. She alone has received the fulness of Him Who fills all things, and now through Her, all may receive it, for She dispenses it according to the capacity of each, and in proportion to the purity of each, since She is both the treasury and the overseer of the riches of God.

Here he explicitly juxtaposes the Incarnation, which comes through her, and her current role of dispensing of Grace which she has by virtue of her relation to God. I’m sorry, but your account absolutely does not any possible interpretation of his words.

You can either disagree with what St. Gregory Palamas says here, which is fine as it’s not dogma by any stretch, or you can accept that his view represents a trend of thought in the Byzantine tradition that is not currently popular (at least in the circles you run in), but you can’t say that he’s saying something other than he clearly is: Mary is now the overseer and treasury of all Grace.

The funny thing is that I’m not especially Marian in my devotions, beyond what we pray in the weekly Divine Liturgy; I don’t come anywhere near St. Gregory Palamas’ devotion, but perhaps it is simply that I’m nowhere near his Saintliness. My belief is simply that we shouldn’t constantly throw out the teachings of our Fathers just because a new stance has come in vogue, and I see this tendency all to often in the modern Byzantine tradition. Rather than simply deny the fact they plainly taught, and argued passionately for, things that are not currently popular, we should accept that our tradition is broader than it is currently lived. It is simply flatly wrong to say that the doctrine of Mary as “mediatrix of all Grace” is utterly foreign to Byzantine piety, and to do so is to throw out our own Fathers in reaction to current trends in Latin devotion is the worst kind of “Latinization” because we don’t even gain anything new from it. It happened with the Immaculate Conception, and now it’s happening with “mediatrix of all Grace”. Again, these aren’t dogmas in our tradition, but they’ve certainly found a safe home and fertile ground within it historically, and only recently have they been thrown out in reaction to the Latins actually catching up with us.

Now, in answer to the heart of your objection, again I stress that no one is claiming that Mary has anything special by nature, nor that she attains what she has other than by her unique role as Theotokos. If she is “mediatrix of all Grace” (and I’m not claiming that she necessarily is, just pointing out that this view is sound in our tradition), it is by Grace and the Incarnation.

On another note, I want to add my voice to the choir of people that disagrees with the notion that salvation can only be attained with devotion to Mary. If Mary is indeed the dispenser of all Blessings, she obviously doesn’t “require” devotion to her before “dispensing all blessings”. Devotion is most fitting, but it’s not a requirement by any stretch. If Saints have said this, then I flatly disagree with them.

Peace and God bless!

 

[ConstantineTG]

I side with Cavaradossi here. Orthodox teaching is always interpreted in context with the greater Orthodox tradition. I think he covered everything, even Scriptures can be interpreted any which way if taken out of the tradition of the Church. Do we need to look any further than all the denominations today, each with their own interpretation of Scripture? Orthodoxy is determined by interpreting something in light of tradition. If the teaching does not fit tradition, then it is heterodox and taken out. Even councils don’t decide what is orthodox or not based on the whims of the bishops, every position has to be presented in the light of tradition.

Cavaradossi never said the concept is foreign to Byzantine faith. But the charge against the Latins is always they have taken it one step further, and often the case, one step too much.

 

[Tochukwu]

The Western and the Eastern Church both grew together from the apostolic times and have always fought all heresies together. We shear the same faith with the East except that the manner with which they are being approached differs a little. Talking about the issue of Marian worship in the east, I say NO, for the west, we are not being taught that in the CCC, but I think some of our uninformed extremists especially here in Nigeria are, should I say somewhat guilty of that. However we know what we are doing and so must continue with the hyperdulia no matter what those ‘outside looking in’ think or say. And please, you guys should help us with something; the church in Nigeria is going through difficult times. Please always say a rosary for Nigeria and help to consecrate her to the BVM. God bless una(you all).

 

[Ghosty]

Cavaradossi never said the concept is foreign to Byzantine faith. But the charge against the Latins is always they have taken it one step further, and often the case, one step too much.

He’s saying that Palamas isn’t saying what he clearly was saying, both in the context of his homily and Byzantine tradition. Furthermore, we’re not speaking about the excesses of Latin theology (you are, and it’s not even the topic of the thread), but whether or not this belief is proper to Byzantine tradition (which is the topic of the thread).

Obviously works must be interpreted within the context of the tradition, and the writings of Fathers like Palamas are precisely what we use to establish such a context.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Cavaradossi]

Sorry, but what you’re saying just doesn’t fly with what Palamas said. You keep saying that this interpretation doesn’t fit with the tradition of the Church, but you aren’t showing anything at all to back this up. Palamas is quite clear that he regards Mary as the dispenser of all blessings right now, as Queen of Heaven. I’m all for variant understanding of words, but yours simply can’t be applied to what he said.

When he speaks of her being the boundary between the created and the Uncreated, it is clear from context that he’s speaking of the Incarnation because that is what he talks about around that statement. There is no context that supports your assertion, however, that he somehow means something other than her “dispensing all blessings” from Heaven now. There is simply no way that this statement:

After death, she has found immortality, and in Her body dwells in Heaven together with Her Son and God. Therefore, She pours forth abundant grace on those honoring Her. She even bestows on us the boldness to hasten unto Her, for She is the vessel of so many graces. She distributes blessings generously on us, and never ceases this profitable bestowal and gracious help.

Grace, but not all grace. I already said that it is not impossible to speak of her bestowing grace on the world. But then this is said of all the saints and not uniquely of the Mother of God.

Furthermore, he says:

Thus, since through Her alone did He Who “appeared upon earth and lived among mankind” (Baruch 3: 38), come unto us, being invisible to all before this time, so in the age to come, without Her intercession… every form of spiritual gift would be beyond the capacity of created beings. She alone has received the fulness of Him Who fills all things, and now through Her, all may receive it, for She dispenses it according to the capacity of each, and in proportion to the purity of each, since She is both the treasury and the overseer of the riches of God.

There is again no reason why this cannot be understood as referring to the Incarnation. The Incarnation was not merely some event in time (although its occurrence in time was of great importance); the Incarnation, as understood by the Fathers is a great cosmic event (just like the Crucifixion, Resurrection, Theophany, Transfiguration, etc.), which extends into eternity. All of that is true only in virtue of the Incarnation, because without the Incarnation and the transformation of the cosmos there would be no grace, there would be no age to come, and there would be no ‘riches of God’ which could be dispensed to the new creation, since the riches of God would be intangible. In this way, and in this way alone, all graces are said to come through her (and because her will works in accordance with the will of God, she can be said to oversee the distribution of these riches, as do all the saints who are in God’s friendship, hence why we pray for the intercessions of the ever-Virgin and all the saints at every liturgy), but it can never for one moment be conceived of separately from the cosmic event of the Incarnation.

You can either disagree with what St. Gregory Palamas says here, which is fine as it’s not dogma by any stretch, or you can accept that his view represents a trend of thought in the Byzantine tradition that is not currently popular (at least in the circles you run in), but you can’t say that he’s saying something other than he clearly is: Mary is now the overseer and treasury of all Grace.

No, I do not have to do any of those things. If that is necessary, then perhaps the Trinitarian Christians should throw verses like “firstborn of all creation” and “The Father is greater than the Son” out of the Scriptures, since we clearly disagree with their most plain meaning. But again, it is inconsistent to assert that the faith works this way, because then we should all be Arians, since their reading of the Scriptures was the most plain. The deposit of faith is only understandable as a whole, not as individual texts isolated from the rest of the Tradition. Even the Scriptures, which are held to be self-sufficient are not exempt from this basic rule of faith. Why should this excellent homily from Gregory Palamas be treated differently?

 

[Cavaradossi]

The funny thing is that I’m not especially Marian in my devotions, beyond what we pray in the weekly Divine Liturgy; I don’t come anywhere near St. Gregory Palamas’ devotion, but perhaps it is simply that I’m nowhere near his Saintliness. My belief is simply that we shouldn’t constantly throw out the teachings of our Fathers just because a new stance has come in vogue, and I see this tendency all to often in the modern Byzantine tradition. Rather than simply deny the fact they plainly taught, and argued passionately for, things that are not currently popular, we should accept that our tradition is broader than it is currently lived. It is simply flatly wrong to say that the doctrine of Mary as “mediatrix of all Grace” is utterly foreign to Byzantine piety, and to do so is to throw out our own Fathers in reaction to current trends in Latin devotion is the worst kind of “Latinization” because we don’t even gain anything new from it. It happened with the Immaculate Conception, and now it’s happening with “mediatrix of all Grace”. Again, these aren’t dogmas in our tradition, but they’ve certainly found a safe home and fertile ground within it historically, and only recently have they been thrown out in reaction to the Latins actually catching up with us.

Piety is not a race, nor could the the Latins really have been said to have caught up. The Immaculate Conception and Mediatrix of all grace, as I have seen them presented, can only loosely be said to be part of the Eastern Tradition. There are certain aspects of both teachings which do not line up so well with the Eastern Tradition, and there are certain aspects which do. We rightfully do not dispute what is consistent with our theology (that the virgin was “born pure”, for example), and reject what is not consistent.

Now, in answer to the heart of your objection, again I stress that no one is claiming that Mary has anything special by nature, nor that she attains what she has other than by her unique role as Theotokos. If she is “mediatrix of all Grace” (and I’m not claiming that she necessarily is, just pointing out that this view is sound in our tradition), it is by Grace and the Incarnation.

I can agree that the title works with the Incarnation alone, but beyond that, I do not think it works so well.

On another note, I want to add my voice to the choir of people that disagrees with the notion that salvation can only be attained with devotion to Mary. If Mary is indeed the dispenser of all Blessings, she obviously doesn’t “require” devotion to her before “dispensing all blessings”. Devotion is most fitting, but it’s not a requirement by any stretch. If Saints have said this, then I flatly disagree with them.

I would agree. Of course, that is not to say that one’s prayer life is truly complete without asking for the intercessions of the ever-virgin and all the saints.

Peace and God bless!

God bless.

 

[Vico]

I was wondering if someone might help me to understand what the Byzantine view of the Blessed Virgin Mary is?

Please note - I am Roman Catholic, but have been attending Byzantine masses.

I have heard (through some highly unreliable sources) the Eastern belief is that the BVM is a Goddess. I know, however, she is viewed as the Theotokos, i.e. the God Bearer, and the Byzantine mass is approved by the Vatican - so I dont know that the Pope’s would have approved such a view, so I’m just wondering if someone could please clarify the distinction (if any) between the Roman view vs the Byzantine view of the BVM/Theotokos?

Again, I want to offer up my usual disclaimer, and say I hope I havent offended anyone in the asking. I am just trying to better understand and respect everyone’s religious sensibilities.

All help and good will is appreciated!

Merriam-Webster goddess
2 : a woman whose great charm or beauty arouses adoration

Perhaps she is a spiritual goddess, with the beauty of virtue.

The Theotokos is magnified in the Divine Liturgy:
It is truly proper to glorify you, O Theotokos, the ever-blessed, immaculate, and the mother of our God.

More honorable than the cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim; who, a virgin, gave birth to God the Word, you, truly the Theotokos, we magnify.

We become partakers in the divine nature, also the Theotokos is a partaker of the divine nature, although not divine by nature.

Catechism

460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81

 

[twf]

Merriam-Webster goddess
2 : a woman whose great charm or beauty arouses adoration

Perhaps she is a spiritual goddess, with the beauty of virtue.

The Theotokos is magnified in the Divine Liturgy:
It is truly proper to glorify you, O Theotokos, the ever-blessed, immaculate, and the mother of our God.

More honorable than the cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim; who, a virgin, gave birth to God the Word, you, truly the Theotokos, we magnify.

We become partakers in the divine nature, also the Theotokos is a partaker of the divine nature, although not divine by nature.

Catechism

460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81

This is a fair point. St. Thomas Aquinas, among others, did say that by virtue of the sacraments, we, as partakers of the divine nature, can indeed be deemed gods. Theosis in Dominican theology is perhaps even more intense than it is in Byzantine theology…I remember a homily by a Dominican priest once where he proclaimed to the congregation: Ye are gods. Of course Our Lord Himself said as much (John 10:34). This must be understood within the context of sanctification (Theosis)…we are not divine by nature nor do we have any glory in and of ourselves, but by virtue of baptism, in which we have put on Christ, and by partaking of the divine nature, of Christ Himself, in the eucharist, we become increasingly godlike and thus in a secondary sense can be deemed gods by grace, though not by nature. Is the Mother of God a goddess? In this sense she is, but certainly not in the pagan sense (divine by nature), and the Tradition of the Church has only rarely employed this terminology simply because of how easily it can be misinterpreted.

 

[GaryTaylor]

and the Tradition of the Church has only rarely employed this terminology simply because of how easily it can be misinterpreted.

Thats why I’m skeptical now when ecumenical is the topic which is constant along with understanding the faith deeper.

 

[Richca]

I side with Cavaradossi here. Orthodox teaching is always interpreted in context with the greater Orthodox tradition. I think he covered everything, even Scriptures can be interpreted any which way if taken out of the tradition of the Church. Do we need to look any further than all the denominations today, each with their own interpretation of Scripture? Orthodoxy is determined by interpreting something in light of tradition. If the teaching does not fit tradition, then it is heterodox and taken out. Even councils don’t decide what is orthodox or not based on the whims of the bishops, every position has to be presented in the light of tradition.

Cavaradossi never said the concept is foreign to Byzantine faith. But the charge against the Latins is always they have taken it one step further, and often the case, one step too much.

Hi Constantine, blessings and peace.
I’m curious as to whether your in an orthodox rite that is under the Pope, or part of the Roman Catholic Church?

At any rate, it seems to me that what you say above about the tradition of the Church could be interpreted to me that the tradition of the Church ended like with the church fathers. Whether or not you hold this view I don’t know.

In the Roman Catholic Church or the Catholic Church throughout the world that is under the Pope as head, the Sacred Tradition of the Church is a living tradition up to the present day. Through the centuries and by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church has grown in a deeper understanding of the deposit of faith. This is the living tradition of the Church. Thus, some marian dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s Assumption into heaven body and soul, though maybe not expressly stated by the church fathers though there may be some hint of it in their writings, became part of the living tradition of the Church until they were formally proclaimed to be truths of the faith by the pope. The doctrine of Mary as Mediatrix of all graces can also be found in the living tradition of the Church though it hasn’t been formally proclaimed to be a dogma by the pope. There are probably hints of it in the church fathers, especially by St Palamas it appears, St Bernard stated that we receive all graces from the hands of Mary, and of course many saints after St Bernard have taught this doctrine. My main point is that the tradition of the Church is a living tradition and that the Church grows in a deeper understanding of the deposit of faith down through the centuries by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. You may hold this view, I don’t know.

 

[Peter_J]

I was wondering if someone might help me to understand what the Byzantine view of the Blessed Virgin Mary is?

Please note - I am Roman Catholic, but have been attending Byzantine masses.

I have heard (through some highly unreliable sources) the Eastern belief is that the BVM is a Goddess.

Merriam-Webster goddess
2 : a woman whose great charm or beauty arouses adoration

Perhaps she is a spiritual goddess, with the beauty of virtue.

The Theotokos is magnified in the Divine Liturgy:It is truly proper to glorify you, O Theotokos, the ever-blessed, immaculate, and the mother of our God.

More honorable than the cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim; who, a virgin, gave birth to God the Word, you, truly the Theotokos, we magnify.
We become partakers in the divine nature, also the Theotokos is a partaker of the divine nature, although not divine by nature.

Catechism

460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81

Question for you, Vico: are you Eastern or Latin? (Your profile doesn’t say.)

 

[Vico]

Question for you, Vico: are you Eastern or Latin? (Your profile doesn’t say.)

I am canonically a member of the (very long titled) Byzantine Metropolitan Church sui iuris of Pittsburgh, USA (Constantinopolitan Ruthenian Rite).

 

[Aramis]

It’s vital to remember: Neither St. Thomas Aquinas nor St. Gregory Palamas dictated dogma. Their writings, even with them both doctors of the church*, parallel as they are, are still just theologumenia.

What the church dictates be taught is removed from the extreme they hold… but I am not aware of any condemnations of that particular theologumenon from the councils nor popes.

*While not declared as such, St. Gregory is very much in the same role for the Byzantine church.

 

[Peter_J]

I am canonically a member of the (very long titled) Byzantine Metropolitan Church sui iuris of Pittsburgh, USA (Constantinopolitan Ruthenian Rite).

Alright, thanks.

But in any case, the answer to the original question of this thread remains the same. As RyanBlack put it in the very first reply “Eastern Christians absolutely do not believe the Theotokos to be a goddess.”

 

[GaryTaylor]

Alright, thanks.

But in any case, the answer to the original question of this thread remains the same. As RyanBlack put it in the very first reply “Eastern Christians absolutely do not believe the Theotokos to be a goddess.”

Its possible this is part of the reason why Mary is spoken on in the Canons only to the degree She is. Focus being Christ, and was difficult enough with human/divine.

When do you think Luke and Acts date to Pete?

 

[Peter_J]

Its possible this is part of the reason why Mary is spoken on in the Canons only to the degree She is. Focus being Christ, and was difficult enough with human/divine.

When do you think Luke and Acts date to Pete?

Don’t understand this ^^ post. Are you agreeing or disagreeing?

 

[GaryTaylor]

I agee with #136.