ALL-HOLY MOTHER OF GOD (PANAGIA THEOTOKOS)

The Orthodox honour the Virgin Mary greatly. Indeed, Protestants have often accused us that we go so far as to fall into some form of Mariolatry (worship of the Virgin Mary). The Holy Bible however, they continue, clearly gives us instances when the Mother of our Lord is chided, even called down, by the Lord.

A typical example of this sort of chastisement can be seen when the Lord was twelve years old. After His parents -- and especially His Mother -- had reprimanded Him, He replied: "Don't you see that I am in the house of my Father?" The Mother of the Lord is here rebuked by Jesus. Isn't this a form of chastisement on her?

The answer to this question is quite simply: no. And here is why.

The Theotokos knew of course something about the grandeur of her Son; she did not however receive knowledge of this grandeur all at once. She would receive knowledge of this slowly over time, based upon the various events and circumstances that would take place over the years: the words of the shepherds to her, the prostration of the Magi that she witnessed, Symeon's words that she heard him utter and in this case the Lord's reprimand.

All these were words that the Theotokos "kept ... and placed in her heart" (Luke 2:19); words that she would remember and place inside her heart, one event after the next one. Through these words, she would shape a picture of the grandeur of her Son. Thus the Virgin Theotokos would increase in the knowledge of her Son. And like her Son "would increase in wisdom and stature" (Luke 2:52) without of course this belittling Him in any way, in a similar manner the Theotokos was reprimanded on occasion and, increasing in knowledge of her Son, was not belittled because of this. She too "increased" in "wisdom" in the wisdom of her Son.

Protestants will agree that the above reprimanding is not really a belittlement of the Virgin Theotokos but progress in the knowledge of her Son's grandeur. However, they may now point out that when some woman from the crowd listened to the beautiful words of the Lord, she said: "Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked" (Luke 11:27), meaning of course His mother, the Theotokos. But the Lord replied (v. 28): "μενούν γε, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it." The word "μενούν γε", the Protestant opinion continues, means "more" and therefore the Lord considers more blessed, and thus in particular above His Mother, every person that obeys the word of God.

First let us point out that the meaning of these verses is quite clear to all who can understand koine Greek. Let us now turn to the interpretation of these words.

The Lord is referring here to the attitude of the woman from the crowd and not to the value of the Theotokos. He is replying to the woman from the crowd who, judging things in a kosmiko ("wordly") manner, "beatifies" the Theotokos for having a blood relation to Jesus, for being His mother. In other words, that woman said exactly what many women in the world today would say: "Lucky is the mother that raised you", without in fact caring if the Mother has any value in and by herself.

And how do we prove this?

Simple. The angel calls the Theotokos "full of grace", Elisabeth calls her "full of the Holy Spirit" and calls her "blessed among women". The Theotokos herself prophesies for herself: "from now onwards, all generations shall call me blessed". For what other Saint, male or female, have we ever heard such words of praise? For no one else. Therefore is it possible to find someone more blessed than her? Of course not. Therefore the "μενούν γε" = "more" of the Lord's words is referring to the kosmiko attitude of the woman of the crowd and not to the true value of the Theotokos, since, as we said, it is not possible to find someone else equally blessed, let alone blessed in a superior way, to the Theotokos.

All this is great, the Protestants will agree, but during the wedding at Canah the Lord reprimanded His mother harshly. In other words, when she told Him that "they have no wine" left, He replied: "Woman, what have I to do with thee? My hour has not yet come" (John 2:4). Not only is she rebuked by her Son, but clearly she is also belittled here.

Firstly, if this supposed "reprimanding" of the Theotokos also had the nature of belittlement, how come the Theotokos immediately dares to turn to the people and say: "Do whatever He tells you to do"? Had the Theotokos been not only reprimanded but also belittled she would have kept her mouth shut and not dare say anything.

Secondly, what is even more peculiar with the above Protestant interpretation, is that had the Lord indeed chastised her for this, He would obviously not have carried out her request. On the contrary He does carry out her request and transforms the water into alcoholic wine (οίνος).

Thirdly, doesn't the request of the Theotokos make an impression on you? The Theotokos makes a request to her Son for a miraculous way of obtaining more wine for the guests. There was no more wine and she goes to her Son and asks Him to grant her this -- obviously through a miracle, for how else would they receive wine when they had none? Or does the reader think they could have ordered some from their nearest ... super market? The servants were the ones responsible for such issues. It would make no sense for the All-Holy Virgin to ask her Son to bring some wine from a little vineyard a few miles down the road; that was the job of the servants. The Theotokos is asking Him to do a miracle. Doesn't it make an impression upon you dear reader that sooner or later her request is granted? Doesn't the fact that her request for thaumaturgy by her Son is eventually granted constitute a great honour towards her?

The Theotokos did not know of the specific time when the water would be transformed into wine; she did however know of the event. For the first one, the Protestants claim that she was reprimanded; for the second one, however, it is clear that she was rewarded.

Why do the Protestants underline the first but not the second one?

And how do we harmonise this rebuking then?

Very simply, as we have mentioned in the Chapter on her Ever-virginity and elsewhere, the word "woman" did not have the belittling connotations that it has today in the English tongue. In fact, even in modern Greek, the word "woman" can be used in a non-reproachful manner. This is also in accordance with the historical reality of the society in those days, where such an expression was common and did not have negative connotations.

Nevertheless, at one time the Mother of the Lord together with His "brothers" (in the law) asked to see Him while He was preaching inside a house. When He was told that "your mother and brothers are outside and want to talk to you", the Lord replied: "Whosoever does the will of My Father who is in the heavens is my brother, and sister, and mother" (Mt. 12:50). Isn't this a clear contempt of the Lord towards His Mother? St. Chrysostom in fact ascribes this to a selfish action on the part of the Theotokos.

Let us first underline here that the divine Chrysostom could not possibly imply a belittlement of the type required by the Protestant argument. This is evident by the wonderful words he has always used towards the Theotokos, as we have seen in our previous analysis pages.

Secondly, we should perhaps make it clear at this stage that the Orthodox Church and thus Christianity, has never considered the Virgin Mary as sinless, equal to God! On the contrary! Before the Holy Spirit came to cleanse her, she had her shortcomings like everyone else. After all, as we said before, she is reprimanded sometimes for "mistakes" while she is gradually learning more and more about her Son's grandeur and also, like with every other person of holiness, increasing spiritually in wisdom while of course doing mistakes at times, using wrong judgment or not being mature enough yet in spiritual thinking.

The Orthodox Church therefore does not consider Virgin Mary as some form of Coredemptrix (whether that be found in an ancient heresy like that of Kollyridianism or in a more contemporary one, like that of Papism) but accepts that she had her shortcomings before her Annunciation. She is however "above all" bar God of course! She is a human being and she is inferior to God! She is however "above all" humans and angels. It is for this reason that she is called "Panagia" i.e. "All-Holy".

But how can we prove that Virgin Mary is above all people and angels?

We have the explicit attestation of the Bible (Lk. 2:19) that she was so careful as regards the words that she would hear from her Son that she "kept all these sayings, placing them inside her heart". Do we have any other such explicit affirmation of such an incredible pious obedience for any other saint, and in fact affirmed in the Holy Writ itself?

Secondly, we all know that the crucificial sacrifice of Christ is the one that saved us (in an absolute sense), and that the one that suffers jointly with Christ (for more information on this issue read this chapter on Saints) will also be glorified in Christ according to the "we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified together" of Romans 8:17. The Bible also tells us that the All-Holy Virgin and the other women "stood by the cross" of Christ (Jn. 19:25).

Can you imagine what pain she must have felt watching her Son hanging from the Cross in His wounds? The Holy Writ itself likens her pain with a sword going through her heart, as Symeon tells her in Luke 2:35. Since she herself went through the worst pain for the Cross of Christ with Him, why shouldn't she also have the greatest glory according to the "we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified together" of Apostle Paul?

Therefore she deserves the title Panagia being superior to all the saints!

And what about the angels?

Apart from the fact that the angels are not excluded by the previous statement we made, we discussed this issue separately in the previous chapter on Mary.

Still, the Protestants will add, the Orthodox honour the Mother of the Lord greatly, with honours that should normally be given only to Christ. You chant for her: "Greater than the Cherubim and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim". Especially when you chant her Paracletic Canon we hear words of glory that sound inappropriate: "Where else can I find comprehension? To whom else can I take refuge in? I hope to thee only. I boast only to thee ... ". Using such words, it is obvious that you the Orthodox give worship to the Theotokos.

Let us first reply to the above comments by bringing the Protestants to the attention of other prayers. There are thousands such prayers, but here is a typical one: a euche of the Offertory (Proskomide) in our Church.

<<Σταυροθέντος σου Χριστέ ανηρέθη η τυραννίς. Ούτε άγγελος, ούτε άνθρωπος έσωσεν ημάς αλλά Αυτός ο Κύριος>>

viz. <<By your crucifixion, O Christ, the tyrant was cancelled. Neither angel nor human saved us, but the Lord Himself.>>

So what is going on here then? The Orthodox chant one thing during the Offertory and another during the Paracletic Canon to the Theotokos? Do the Orthodox simply contradict themselves?

No, there is a very important reason why we do this.

Using the words of the Proskomide, where we rule out every angel and human being (and therefore the Theotokos as well) as a source of salvation, we take the Theotokos as a human being named Maria.

When we chant her Paracletic Canon and consider her as the only source of salvation, we see her as the Mother of Christ, as the vehicle of the Incarnation, of the Redemption of the human race; in a certain way as the source of our salvation, because through her our Saviour was born. Our mind, and more specifically the mind of the poet who wrote the Paracletic Canon, easily slips from the face of the Theotokos as a human being and goes over to her position as mother of our Saviour and we express this fact thus.

All this however, the Protestants would argue, are sophistries. In the Holy Bible, the "yea" is "yea" and the "no" is "no". We do not have any example where the mind of some God-inspired man swings from one thing to another. The Bible has the yes to mean yes and the no to mean no!

But that is not how things have in the Bible.

The Lord Himself, when He describes the destruction of Jerusalem (Mt. 24:1-51. Mark 13. Lk. 21:5-36), connects her destruction with the destruction of the whole world so closely, in fact, that it is not easy at certain places for us to be able to say if these refer to the destruction of Jerusalem or of the whole world; because our Lord's mind (and thus ours' too) easily slips from the eikon (picture) of the situation (the destruction of Jerusalem) to the eikonizomenon (the thing being depicted, i.e. the destruction of the world).

Thus, why should we deny the Paracletic Canon poet's right (and hence our right) to slip our mind and view the Theotokos in the Proskomide on the one hand as a mere human being and on the other, through the words of the Paracletic Canon, as the vehicle of our Redemption?

But, the Protestant will argue now, is it possible for a human being to have two honours? One as a human being and another one as something else?

We reply: of course it is! The President, the King, or the Prime Minister, are not only honoured as men but also due to their position. The same happens to certain women.

Thus the King's wife is known as the Queen. The teacher's wife in many areas of the world is also known as a teacher (daskala), even though she may not know how to read or write. In the United States, the President's wife is not only seen as a woman but also seen as the First Lady, even though she may know nothing about politics and does not participate in the political ministry. The list of such examples is endless.

Therefore, if men like the President, the Prime Minister, or the King are honoured in their capacity as representatives of the people or due to their position, why shouldn't the Theotokos be honoured due to her position, namely as Mother of Christ, as the source of our redemption and salvation?

If in many villages in Greece or Russia, simple unlearned women are known as mrs. teacher or mrs. doctor; if around the whole world the Orthodox presbyter's wife is known as presbytera even though she is not called to the priesthood of Christ, why are Protestants scandalised so much when the Theotokos is equally honoured due to her place as Mother of Christ?

The Protestants at this stage will admit that such an honour is without a doubt fully justifiable in the eyes of the world. Is it also biblical though?, they will wonder.

Of course it is. We read: "blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb," says Elisabeth to the Theotokos (Lk. 1:4). She calls the Theotokos as evlogimeni (blessed, feminine) and the fruit of her womb as evlogimeno (blessed, masculine). Here is the same word used to describe both the Theotokos and Jesus, mentioned by Elisabeth who was at the time filled by the Holy Spirit. Here! A hymnographical equalisation of the Theotokos and Christ that is biblical!

The Protestant will hasten to add that; yes, she is blessed among women but not Panagia (All-holy, feminine). Holy is God, All-Holy the Theotokos? The aforementioned force us to accept her as Theotokos, fair enough, but she is still a woman. She cannot be called as "All-Holy" when God is called "Holy"! The same goes for other situations in the Orthodox Church. The Patriarch, for example, is called Panagiotatos (extreme superlative for All-Holy, masculine). The above do not show examples of hymnographical equalisations but unbearable elevations of the Theotokos or the Patriarchs in relation to God!

We reply:

We call the Theotokos as Pan-hagia (All-Holy) and the Patriarch as Pan-hagio-tatos (Most-Holy) whereas we call God as Hagios (Holy), not because we compare humans with God and consider human beings more elevated than God. On the contrary! This can be certified by the title given to the Theotokos (Pan-hagia = Panagia) and the title given to the Patriarch (Pan-hagio-tatos = Panagiotatos).

We never thought, not even for one moment, that a Patriarch (even one of true holiness and not just due to the title) is above (being Panagio-tatos in the superlative) the Theotokos whom we call as Panagia. Wouldn't that contradict all of our previous words and Orthodox belief? How could we therefore do such a thing?

We use these titles as titles that serve certain comparisons between human beings only.

Thus, we call the Theotokos as Panagia because she is above all the saints. We call the Patriarchs as Panagiotatous (plural of Panagiotatos) in order to distinguish them from others that are still holy but not as holy as the Patriarchs are (or should be in theory). In theory, and many times also in practice, the Patriarch is chosen to be the one that is considered by all to be the one that is most holy. This is why he is honoured with this title. Protestants are aware of something similar when some denominations call their pastors Most Reverend and not simply Reverend, depending on the pastor's position in the hierarchy and experience.

Nevertheless, the Protestants may insist, we cannot see how God is Holy whereas mere people are called Most-Holy or All-Holy!

This is because between humans one is better than the other one and thus we have superlatives to express this: they are holier or holiest. God however is an Absolute Being and incomparable. Thus He is simply Holy.

This makes common sense but the Protestant may still feel uncomfortable to do such a thing.

Indeed, however there is a grammar rule that allows this. Let us bring a few examples.

We have some adjectives (stone, wooden, golden, silver etc.) that cannot have superlatives. We cannot say that this stone is "stonier" than that stone, or that this wood is "more wooden" than that wood. This is because the stone, the wood, the gold, the silver and so forth cannot be compared and they have the "absolute" in themselves. The same holds with God. Because He is an Absolute Being, He cannot be compared to other gods (there are none!) or human beings, His creations! There are no superlatives; He can only be called as Holy.

This is logical. But is it also Biblical? Can we find verses in the Holy Writ that use the lative for God and superlative for human beings?

Of course we can. Apostle Peter calls God's hand as "κραταιάν" (mighty) in 1 Peter 5:6. The Bible also calls God simply as "Κραταιόν" (Mighty) in Deuter. 7:21, Psalms 23:8 and Neem. 2:32.

St. Luke calls Theophilus as "Κράτιστον" (superlative of Κραταιός, i.e. mightiest or most mighty) in Luke 1:3 and Paul names Felix as "Κράτιστε Φήλιξ" (Mightiest Felix) in the Acts 24:3. "Κράτιστε Φήστε" (Mightiest Phestus) he calls Phestus (Acts 26:25). God is called as Mighty, whereas people, even impious ones, are called Most Mighty. Lative for God, superlatives for human beings. Is the Bible blaspheming? We don't think so.

Let us finally return to the title given to the Virgin Mary: Theotokos, which means God-bearing (feminine).

Protestants always claim that we cannot call her as Theotokos because the Bible nowhere uses that title but only the titles or names Virgin, Mother of Christ (Christotokos) or Maria.

Christ however was not only a man but also God. The Protestants will agree here of course.

Then where is the problem?

The Protestants will argue that God is of course the Father who is unbegotten and the Son, while indeed He is eternally begotten from the Father, He is nevertheless without beginning in time. How can we accept to call the unbegotten Father and the Son who is without beginning in time that they somehow "fully" received a beginning and a birth in time from one woman, Maria?

But this shows that the Protestants who claim these things are ignorant of what we actually claim.

When the Orthodox claim that Maria is Theotokos, we do not imply anything like this. That would be a terrible blasphemy! What we mean is that Christ is not only a human being but also God, because the Bible speaks expressly about this. The Lord Himself confirms this when He tells the Jews about Himself: "before Abraham I was" (Jn. 8:58). As we see, the Lord affirms by the words "I was" that He existed before Abraham. The Lord was only 30 years old at the time He said this, whereas Abraham had died 2000 years before the Lord had said these words. Therefore that "I was" referred to His Divinity.

The Protestants of course will agree at this stage. But they may ask: why don't we meet the term Theotokos in any of the ancient Fathers of the first four centuries but only in the fifth century, when the Third Oecumenical Synod took place (431 A.D.)?

That however is not true. The Protestants who claim this are ignorant of Ecclesiastical History.

Here is plenty of examples of well-known and respected Ancient Fathers and Ecclesiastical scholars who used the term freely long before the Third Ecumenical Synod had convened.

1. ORIGEN (230 A.D.)

<<Την ήδη μεμνηστευμένην γυναίκα καλεί. Ούτω και επί Ιωσήφ και της Θεοτόκου ελέχθη.>> (interpr. Tome 2, p.331)

The above ancient testimony speaks volumes. The antiquity of the title Theotokos is seen clearly by the fact that Origen does not speak about it as something unprecedented. On the contrary he refers to it as if it were a common and often used title in the Church.

2. DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA (250 A.D.)

Writing to Paul of Samosata, he says: "τον σαρκωθέντα εκ της Αγίας Παρθένου και Θεοτόκου Μαρίας", i.e. "[Christ] the one that was crucified [born from] the Holy Virgin and Theotokos Mary".

3. GREGORY OF NEOCAESAREA THE MIRACLE-WORKER (275 A.D.)

He writes: "Ταύτης της προφητείας την ωδήν η αγία Θεοτόκος ανέπεμπεν" (Speech on the Annunciation). "The Holy Theotokos refers back to the prophecy's ode".

4. METHODIUS, BISHOP OF PATARA (300-311 A.D.)

He writes: "Λαβομένη η Θεοτόκος των εκ του αχράντου και παναμώμου αυτής θυσιαστηρίου σαρκωθέντα ζωοποιόν και ανέκφραστον άνθρακα ως λαβίδι ... επί τούτοις παρουσιασάμενος ο δίκαιος και τη προτροπή είξας της διακονησαμένης Θεώ προς ανθρώπους Θεομήτορος ... περιφανώς ιερά θεομήτωρ εξετέλει" (Speech on Symeon and the Holy Theotokos, pp. 406, 411, 417, 421).

Notice that he uses both of the titles we have met before: Theotokos and Theometor. The first means God-bearing and the second one Mother of God. Both are interpreted to mean that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she gave birth to Christ, fully God and fully man. In English, we keep the title as it appears in Greek (Theotokos) for doctrinal reasons (to fight Nestorianism) but we also use of course the other title that is to be interpreted in the same way, namely Mother of God (the term Theometor is not usually used in English but the title is expressed periphrastically by the words Mother of God, that mean the same thing).

5. ATHANASIUS THE GREAT

He says on the Annunciation: "και αυτός ο άγγελος ορώμενος ομολογεί απεστάλθαι παρά του Δεσπότου ως επί Ζαχαρίαν ο Γαβριήλ και επί της Θεοτόκου Μαρίας".

6. BASIL THE GREAT

This is something we met when we talked about her Ever- Virginity. In particular, at the point when he reminds us that those who love Christ (the philochrists) would never even accept to hear any words that claim that she, the Theotokos, ever stopped being the perpetual virgin; he proclaims: "δια το μη καταδέχεσθαι των φιλοχρίστων την ακοήν ότι ποτέ επαύσατο παρθένος είναι η Θεοτόκος εκείνας ηγούμαι τας μαρτυρίας αυτάρκεις". (On the Holy Birth of Christ, Migne 31, p.146-148). Again the term is used as if it already had been widely accepted and well-known in the Church.

7. GREGORY THE THEOLOGIAN

In his speech on the Birth of Christ, he writes "ει τις ου Θεοτόκον Μαρίαν υπολαμβάνει χωρίς έστι της Θεότητος."

8. AMPHILOCHIUS, BISHOP OF IKONION (370 A.D.)

He says quite explicitly: "δι' ακοής συνέλαβεν η Μαρία η προφήτις Θεόν ζώντα. Ει δε τις χριστιανός χρηματίζειν δοκεί και προς την Θεοτόκον της ενθέου ασχάλλει και προσιλλιγγιά ...".

9. EPIPHANIUS

He writes: "μετασχών της σαρκός χωρίς σπέρματος ανδρός από της Θεοτόκου Μαρίας αναπλάσσει την αυτού αγίαν σάρκα" (Agkyrotos p.35).

10. AUGUSTINE

He writes: "πλην μόνης της Θεοτόκου πάντες οι λοιποί ήμαρτον. μόνη γαρ η Θεοτόκος πλείονα χάριν έλαβεν" (Encomium to the Theotokos, p.60).

11. BLESSED CHRYSOSTOM

When father Chrysostom reminds us that she is above all "logical created beings", i.e. humans: "Οίδεν τοίνυν εν βίω οίον η Θεοτόκος Μαρία. Περίελθε ω άνθρωπε πάσαν την κτίσιν τω λογισμώ ει εστίν ίσον ή μείζον της αγίας Θεοτόκου Παρθένου" (speech on the Holy Theotokos, p.871).

12. THEODORETUS

He writes: "των πάλαι και προπάλαι της Ορθοδόξου πίστεως κηρύκων κατά την αποστολικήν παράδοσιν Θεοτόκον διδαξάντων ονομάζειν και πιστεύειν την του Κυρίου μητέρα" (Dialogos B', against Pelagius). St. Theodoretus affirms here that the title Theotokos is apostolic tradition!

THIRD OECUMENICAL SYNOD (431 A.D.)

Taking into consideration all of the above ancient testimonies (and many more), as well as the Orthodox Consciousness of the Church of Christ, the Synod anathematised Nestor and his followers, who did not wish to name Maria as Theotokos but only as Christotokos.

CONCLUSION

The "I am with you all the days" is 100% in favour of the Orthodox position that has held fast through the centuries. Those however who reject the title Theotokos (or equally leave it optional to the lay person) have already been anathematised by the Holy Fathers of the Church under inspiration by the Holy Spirit.

FOOTNOTES

placed = The KJV makes a very misleading translation here. It writes "pondered" for "συμβάλλουσα", probably trying to take into account the "συν" (and). But the non-Greek speaking reader may somehow think that she was uncertain or just pondered over things in general, in the way people tend to do; whereas the word here clearly points towards an organised archiving of the information inside one's memory, done with great piety and care. Another problem is that the KJV uses the word "things" for "ρήματα", which means "verbal sayings" and clearly indicates here the presence of words of (spiritual) depth and importance and not just "things".