Miguel Garcia Jr.

Dr. Cutsinger

RELG 332

5th December 2014

Hymnography and the Mythological Significance of the Virgin

“What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose?”

-Ambrose of Milan (The Virgins 2:2)

Despite intellectually accepting the fact that the Virgin Mary held an elevated status in the

minds of early Christians, and that she still does for present day Catholics (East and West)1,

I was bothered when I first read Alan Watts’ chapter on Advent. After reading his

description of the Virgin as “uncreated and divine, being simply the female aspect of the

Godhead”, I responded the same way he anticipates “official theology” would, by

denouncing it as “blasphemy and heresy”2. I felt as if he had pushed doctrinal boundaries to

a point where he was completely misrepresenting and skewing the Christian faith.

Whatever Watts was espousing, it wasn’t Christian and I wanted to stay away from it lest I

be sucked into a snare of the enemy and give undue glory to a created being. His talk of the

Mother Goddess and māyā felt inappropriate in a class on Christian theology. That being

said, I still maintained, intellectually, that the Virgin was due veneration. What Watts was

describing was far beyond that and, for me, it was too close to worship3. These

assumptions, despite how strongly I felt, were severely challenged when I heard the hymns

and prayers sung at the Vespers service prior to the Feast of the Entrance of the Theotokos

1 Anytime I use the term Catholic in this paper it refers to Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians2 Myth and Ritual in Christianity pg. 64. Pagination comes from the edited version found on Blackboard3 Worship hear meaning latria, that honor due to God alone

Garcia 2

into the Temple. I had heard Orthodox prayers to Mary before, things like “Remembering

our All Holy, Immaculate, Most Blessed Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary”, but what I heard

that night was quite different. The language used to describe the Theotokos was more

powerful than anything I had heard prior to that evening. As the choir hymned “O spotless

and undefiled Mother of God, glorified in heaven and on earth, save the human race!”, my

eyes met the large icon of the Virgin of the Sign behind the iconostasis, and I realized that

what Watts was describing in Myth and Ritual was an accurate depiction of Her place in the

Church4. It was present in the Tradition (παραδοσις) of the Church; tucked away to be

sure, but nevertheless present. This epiphany caused me to begin researching (to use that

term loosely) what other Christians, Orthodox and non-Orthodox, have to say regarding the

Virgin. While the typical Protestant treatment of Mary as a “vessel for God” was troubling

enough5, I was perhaps more disturbed by the Catholic responses to degrading comments

such as that. I say this because I noticed that there was a disconnect between the actual

veneration of Mary that I was experiencing and Catholic justifications for that veneration.

Though the authors of the Catholic literature I was reading had taken upon themselves the

noble task of defending Orthodoxy, what they actually ended up doing was demoting the

Virgin to a place of “average sainthood”. Their attempts to rationalize and “prove” that the

veneration of Mary was, and is, logical and “Scriptural” was causing their oratio (prayer), in

which the Virgin is being elevated above all creation, to be inconsistent with their ratio

(reasoning) about that prayer. This ratio was unintentionally lowering Her status by

claiming that phrases sung to Her, such as “O Most Holy Theotokos save us”, could, in fact,

4 Taken from Hymns for the “Feast of the Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple” on the Orthodox Church in America’s website, under the section entitled “Texts for Liturgical Services”5 I spoke with one person who confessed that he was taught that Mary’s relationship to Christ was analogous to a “Tupperware” container’s relationship with food!

Garcia 3

be said of any “average Christian”. In this paper I will argue that when a believer attempts

to rationalize and justify the hyperdulia6 given to the Virgin, it will result in this disservice

to the Blessed Mother. I will also show that the liturgical tradition ( ) of the παραδοσις

Church corroborates Watts’ metaphysical claim that the Virgin is the Prima Materia of

creation, and that, instead of rationalizing his veneration of Mary, the believer should seek

to contemplate Her through the prayers and hymns that hint at Her true metaphysical

identity. While some would suggest that the mythology presented in Myth and Ritual could

hurt the believer and cause unwarranted worship of Mary, I maintain that Watts’

exposition of the Virgin’s role in the Christic myth actually keeps the Christian more faithful

to the essence of the faith by upholding the mystery of the Virgin7.

Watts’ Metaphysics in Traditional Hymns to the Virgin

I will address my claim that “the liturgical Tradition corroborates Watts’ metaphysics” first,

so that I may better highlight the issues with justifying Marian veneration. I must clarify

what I mean by that claim before I continue though. I am in no way asserting that Watts is a

friend of “popular theology”, nor do I think he would consider himself “orthodox” in a

theological sense. Rather, I am claiming that his understanding of the mythological

significance of the Virgin in consistent with the Church’s liturgical prayers and hymns to

Her. The mythological significance that I am referring to is the idea that she is Prima

Materia, the Womb of Creation, and Mystical Rose of Heaven. She is also mythologically

significant insofar as she “typifies everything signified by Māyā in Hinduism and

6 As opposed to the latria due to God alone; though Watts does claim that she should be elevated higher than Catholic theology currently allows and describes the “inevitable dogma” that she should be given latria as a “victory”, she is still [only] either associated with the Logos or the Spirit in Myth and Ritual. He never suggests that she is associated in any way with God the Father7 I apologize for the two-page introduction and its personal tone. I felt it was necessary though to fully explain my reactions to Myth and Ritual.

Garcia 4

Buddhism”8. These claims are admittedly shocking and Watts intends them to be; he wants

the Church to recognize the significance of the language used to describe Her and to stop

lowering Her status by theologizing about it. So to what liturgical language am I referring?9

The corpus of Orthodox liturgical books is filled with canons, akathists, troparions, and

various other hymns to the Theotokos. (The question really should be: where will I begin?)

Two of the most common liturgical pieces written to Mary are Her Supplicatory Canon

( ) and her Akathist hymn. These can be found in most standard Orthodox Παρακλεσις

prayer books and are often recited during the various feasts of the Theotokos. Both of these

liturgical texts mirror Watts’ language10, though they do not contain the explicit

metaphysical explanations he gives for the myth. Still, there is more going on in these

hymns than simply acknowledging Her humility and service to God, traits any two

Christians could agree on. To begin, the Sixth Ode of the Supplicatory Canon reads as

follows:

“We have acquired thee as a wall of refuge, and the perfect salvation of our souls, and a relief in afflictions, O Maiden, and we ever rejoice in thy light. O Sovereign Lady, do thou also now save us from passions and dangers.”11

That passage itself, independent of interpretation, is a potent statement. The phrase

“perfect salvation” jumps out at the reader and he begins to recognize as he prays the

pivotal role the Virgin plays in his salvation. Being the Mother of God, she is the means by

which Christ enters the world to redeem mankind. As Watts says, “She is that without

which there would be no Christ”12. That is not to say that she is just a “means” for the 8 Myth and Ritual pg. 639 I will be primarily referencing Orthodox liturgical prayers and hymns during the course of this paper, since I am more familiar with them. However, I will note if I make use of Roman Catholic liturgical elements. 10 Or rather his language mirrors that of the liturgy11 All quotations from the Supplicatory Canon and the Akathist Hymn to the Theotokos come from the Jordanville Prayer Book 4th edition, produced by Holy Trinity Monastery 12 Myth and Ritual pg. 59

Garcia 5

Incarnation. Neither Watts nor the liturgical language stops after recognizing Mary’s role in

salvation. Shortly after the above passage, in the Sticheron of the Supplicatory Canon, the

faithful sing, “…O Sovereign Lady of creation, hope and protection of the faithful; turn not

away from my supplication, do that which will profit me”. As this Sticheron illustrates,

Mary is often referred to as the “first among creation” 13, signaling to the prayerfully

attentive that she should be contemplated on a deeper level. These lines begin to unveil the

mythological significance of the Virgin by acknowledging her association with the creation

of the world. It is not an unfathomable leap to make from declaring that the Theotokos is

the “Sovereign Lady of creation” to Watts’ idea that she is that “Prima Materia”, whose

division made possible the world of the Many as we usually experience it14. As I mentioned

earlier, he also claims that the Virgin is everything signified by māyā, the female consort of

God. Though the term is usually translated as “illusion”, Watts elaborates on this and claims

that māyā is that “no-thing, which, when measured or divided, becomes things”. When I

read this line I was reminded of a phrase used by the instructor in his lecture on the

doctrine of creation. It was determined in that class meeting that the doctrine of creation ex

nihilo must mean something other than creation from actual “nothingness”. If Parmenides

is right that “ex nihilo nihil fit”, then creation ex nihilo must truly mean creation from

“nothing-other-than-that-no-thing-which-is-God”. In other words, God must, in some sense,

“divide” Himself to make the multiplicity of things that exist.15 That being said, if all things

come from God, one expects that all natural phenomena would, in one way or another, be a

13 Most notably in the Prayer to the Most Holy Theotokos contained in Her Akathist Hymn14 Myth and Ritual pg. 6315 This is also because of His Infinitude, which necessitates that He permeates all things. If God truly is Infinite, and not just in a spatio-temporal sense, then there would be no way for Him to “create” anything that is not from Himself.

Garcia 6

reflection of the Logos, “by whom all things were made”16. C. S. Lewis proposes this same

idea in his work Miracles when he says that the patterns of descent and re-ascension in

vegetable life and sexual reproduction exist “in Nature because they were first there in

God”17. In like manner, we see the celestial bodies rise and fall from the sky as the day fades

into night and then comes back again, reflecting the Death and Resurrection of Christ. If it is

true that all things reflect the Logos, then we should expect the Logos to have a feminine

counterpart in His creation of the world, since the creation of human and animal life is only

possible when the male impregnates the female and, in a sense, “divides” her by causing

her to “lose” a part of herself in childbirth. The Virgin is this feminine counterpart and the

Church recognized this early in its history, as the Sticheron of the Supplicatory Canon

illustrates by calling Her the “Sovereign Lady of creation”18. She is sovereign over all

creation because it was from Her that creation received its form. The parallel between

creation and the historical Incarnation is unmistakable. The way in which the Logos

“divided” Her so that He might assume flesh when He took the form of Jesus of Nazareth,

recapitulates His eternal “dividing” act whereby God creates all things. Just as she is that

“without which there would be no Christ”, she is simultaneously that without which there

would be no creation. In addition to Her role as the Prima Materia, the hymns of the Church

testify to Her role as the Rosa Mundi, or the Rose of the World. Ekos 3 of the Akathist Hymn

to the Theotokos is a good example of such a hymn, as it is itself blooming with flower

16 Watts agrees with this sentiment and on pg. 36 he claims, “the Logos…was the ideal pattern after which the creation was modeled”. I am here borrowing language from the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed to show the universality of this opinion. It is also important to note that I will now refer to the Logos as the agent in God’s act of creating, since this is the traditional understanding. 17 A Reader in Christian Theology pg. 9718 The Small Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos is generally attributed to Theosterictus the Monk, who lived in the 9th Century. It is undoubtedly rooted in earlier prayers to the Theotokos that may have existed centuries before.

Garcia 7

imagery. In the course of seven lines Mary is referred to as “the Unfading Sprout”,

“Immortal Fruit”, “a Cornland yielding a crop of mercies”, and “the one who makest bloom

the garden of delight”. So, Watts is not innovating when he refers to Her as that “Mystic

Rose” which makes up the Centre of Heaven19. Once one recognizes Her role in the creation

of “things”, both in Heaven and on Earth, then this is simply the logical conclusion.

Despite the presence of these hymns, and the mythological and metaphysical place of the

Virgin that they imply, many Catholics (both East and West) inadvertently demote the

Virgin to a place equal to that of an “ordinary saint”20. They do this by attempting to

rationalize their prayers and hymns, typically in discussions with non-Catholic Christians.

While they are most likely just trying to defend their Catholicity against attack, or perhaps

clarify it to an interested party, they are actually doing a disservice to the faith by

misrepresenting, as Watts says, “the second most important figure in the Christian myth”21.

Displacing the Virgin

I do not wish to sound too critical of these attempts. The veneration shown to the Virgin

Mary in the Catholic traditions is perhaps the most difficult practice for potential

Protestant converts to accept, and most Catholics have good intentions when they justify it.

Even without the mythological understanding of the Virgin outlined above, the reverence

and devotion shown to her in the form of icon adoration, the Rosary prayer, and the

numerous hymns are difficult for a sola scriptura Protestant to accept. A phrase such as “Oh

Most Holy Theotokos Save Us”, which is said repeatedly in many Orthodox Christian

services, does not mix well with the Protestant desire to keep Jesus of Nazareth at the

19 Myth and Ritual pg. 15720 I say that recognizing that the phrase “ordinary saint” is oxymoronic 21 Myth and Ritual pg. 59

Garcia 8

center of all things. Wishing to justify themselves, many Catholics, again both East and

West, become apologetic in their devotion to the Blessed Virgin and attempt to make

rationalizing arguments from Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition to justify their beliefs and

practices. For example, many will respond to those critical of the Theotokian mentioned

above by citing passages in 1st Timothy and James that claim people can be “saved” through

the help or intercession of others. Since it occurs in these Biblical texts, the Catholic argues,

it is acceptable to apply this phrasing to the Mother of God. However, this response, though

certainly intended to show Protestant Christians that the hyperdulia of Mary is founded in

Holy Tradition and not simply an arbitrary belief, tends to create a dissonance between

what the Catholic Christian believes about the hyperdulia he shows to the Virgin and his

actual practice of it. If the Theotokian I mentioned can be used for any garden-variety saint,

then the Virgin is thus demoted from Her place as the Queen of Heaven to the status of an

“ordinary saint”22. Now, mind you, there is nothing bad about being an “ordinary saint”, and

I don’t know of any Christian who would disagree with me on that point. But, “the one

without whom there would be no Christ or creation” is no “ordinary saint”; She is much

more. By saying that the work the Theotokos does is normative, in the sense that all saints

can perform it, the Christian lessens Her value, even on the theological level, not to mention

the metaphysical. If the law of prayer truly is the law of belief (lex orandi lex credendi), then

the truth must be contained in the way the Church prays to Mary, and the hymns proclaim

Her identity as the “Sovereign of creation”. The metaphysical truth contained in the hymns

that are sung may not always be apparent to the one saying those prayers, but it does not

22 I recognize that salvific language is used with reference to other saints, such as asking for their intercession before Christ, but the frequency of the Marian hymns and the strong language used in those hymns shows that Her place ought to be elevated above “normal saints”. The moniker, “Sovereign Lady of creation” should be enough to illustrate my point.

Garcia 9

follow from that ignorance that the metaphysical truth is diminished in any way23. The

truth is that the Blessed Virgin is the Panagia (Παναγια), or Most Holy One, and she is

treated as such in the hymns I mentioned above. To rationalize the hyperdulia shown to

Her, by making it commonplace, is to take away part of its value, much the same way Watts

claims theologizing about the myth deadens it24.

Embracing the Mystery

If rationalizing about the veneration of the Virgin “deadens” Her significance, then how

does the Catholic Christian speak to others about his devotion? Is he to simply remain

silent, or must he give a defense of the faith as St. Peter says? When I came to this point

myself, after realizing that rationalizing the veneration of Mary was a disservice to Her, I

was at a loss. I understood that the principle of lex orandi lex credendi forbids me from

justifying Her veneration, thus demoting Her to “ordinary” status, yet I still wished to say

something about the way She is hymned in the Church that did not require a course in

metaphysics to understand. I was listening to some podcasts from Ancient Faith radio and I

came across an episode from Father Thomas Hopko’s podcast, Speaking the Truth in Love,

in which he discusses the Feast of the Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple. In that

podcast, he quotes Vladimir Lossky, who said that the Virgin is “not a part of the preaching

of the Christian faith”25. This was initially puzzling, but what he means by this, as Father

Hopko went on to explain, is that Mary is not able to be preached everywhere, like the

message of the Gospel is. She is instead a part of the inner life of the Church, a mysterion,

23 Ignorance here is not meant in any derogatory sense; not everyone is able to study metaphysics24 Myth and Ritual pg. 59. Here the page number corresponds to the printed paperback edition and not the edited class version. 25 I summarize and paraphrase the ideas from that particular episode of Speaking the Truth in Love. The episode is transcribed here: http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/the_entrance_of_the_theotokos_into_the_temple

Garcia 10

meant to be contemplated once one has entered the faith. Unless one is involved in the

inner life of the Church, the Virgin will be incomprehensible to you says Lossky. She will

always remain a mysterion, but this mysterion can only be properly contemplated in the

context of the liturgical life of the Church, which includes the hymns that subtly reveal Her

mythological and metaphysical significance. Father Hopko does not go on to say this, but by

recognizing this inability to contemplate the Virgin outside of the inner life of the Church,

one can actually protect Her from being rationalized. To see Her as the mysteria that she

truly is and embracing Her “without whom there would be no creation (i.e. you)”, She

retains Her place as the Primal Mother and She no longer requires an explanation. Earlier I

made a distinction between the oratio offered up to Mary and the ratio employed by those

wishing to explain that prayer. It is significant to point out, as you can probably see, that

you create ratio when you remove the ‘o’ from oratio. Removing this ‘o’ alters the meaning

of the word so much so that the essence of oratio is forgotten. Similarly, one cannot move

from praying to the Virgin to reasoning about that prayer without losing an essential

element of what it means to venerate Her. Theologizing about the Virgin can never

compare to Her living myth that is retold and re-membered ( ) every time the αναμνησις

Liturgy is celebrated. The most appropriate course of action is to contemplate and

participate in the mystery and invite others to do the same, for only then will the Virgin

shine forth in Her true light.