Quick viewing(Text Mode)

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi: the Doctrine of the Theotokos As a Liturgical Creed in the Coptic Orthodox Church

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi: the Doctrine of the Theotokos As a Liturgical Creed in the Coptic Orthodox Church

Journal of Coptic Studies 14 (2012) 47–62 doi: 10.2143/JCS.14.0.2184687

LEX ORANDI, LEX CREDENDI: THE DOCTRINE OF THE AS A LITURGICAL IN THE COPTIC ORTHODOX

BY BISHOY DAWOOD

1. Introduction

In the Surah entitled “The Table Spread” in the Quran, Mohammed, the prophet of Islam, proclaimed a long revelation from God, and in a part that spoke of the role of Mary and teachings of , the following was mentioned: “And behold! Allah will say: ‘O Jesus the son of Mary! Did you say to men, ‘worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah’?’” (Sura 5:116).1 It is of note here that not only the strict mono- theistic of Islam objected to the Christian worshipping of Jesus as God, but it was commonly believed that also worshipped his mother, Mary, as a goddess. This may have been the result of a mis- understanding of the term Theotokos, literally meaning “God-bearer”, but also means “Mother of God”, which was attributed to Mary by the Christians, who used the phrase Theotokos in their liturgical worship. Likewise, in Protestant , there was a reaction to the excessive adoration of the Mary in the non-liturgical devotions of the churches of the West, which was termed “Mariolatry.” However, as Jaroslav Pelikan noted, the Eastern churches commemorated and cel- ebrated Mary as the Theotokos in their liturgical worship and hymnology.2 The place of the Theotokos in the liturgical worship of the Eastern Chris- tian churches does not only show the spiritual relation between the Virgin Mother and the people who commemorate her, but it is primarily a creedal affirmation of the of the believers praying those hymns addressed to the Theotokos. As such, the term Theotokos does not imply the generation of God from a goddess-mother as in polytheistic , nor does it involve the worship of Mary — both of which are popular

1 “Surah 5: Maida, or The Table Spread”. In: Ali, The Quran, 75. 2 Pelikan, , 410.

995694_JOCS_14_2012_04_Dawood.indd5694_JOCS_14_2012_04_Dawood.indd 4747 119/12/129/12/12 11:4411:44 48 BISHOY DAWOOD

misconceptions of the doctrine of the Theotokos. On the contrary, its liturgical use is a creedal affirmation of how the term Theotokos applies to Mary in her maternal relation to Jesus , the Incarnate of God — as John Meyendorff correctly noted, the doctrine of the Theo- tokos is not a Mariological doctrine, but a Christological doctrine.3 I will argue in this paper that the use of the term Theotokos in the hymnology of the Eastern Christian churches is, in fact, the Christological Creed of the Church, which did not take the shape of a conventional “Confession of Faith” as did the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, but was expressed liturgically in the hymnology of the Eastern churches. In this paper, I will first argue that the phrase “lex orandi, lex credendi” (the law of prayer is the law of belief) is applicable to the situations in which creedal affirmations are made in liturgical worship in the Eastern Christian churches rather than in the conventional form of a Confession of Faith. In this paper, I will focus on how the term and hymns of the Theotokos are used to affirm the Christology of the church in a liturgical manner, as there is no Confession of Faith (comparable to the Nicene- Constantinopolitan Creed) that comes down from an that the believers could recite concerning their Christology. After briefly examining the history of the term Theotokos and the Christological con- troversy of the fifth century A.D., I will show how the hymnology of the Coptic Orthodox Church, particularly in the liturgical rite of the Midnight Tasbeha (Praises) Vigils, is an example of creedal affirmations of Chris- tology through hymns on the Theotokos.

2. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi

Much has been written about the Christian that affirm the belief in one Triune God and through Christ and the , as found, for instance, in Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. Scholars noted that there have been many reasons why creeds arose in , one of the prominent reasons being the use of a declaratory profession of faith in the form of a creed by the catechumens before . There were, though, other reasons for creeds to arise: preaching, catechetical instruction, and anti-heretical and anti-pagan polemics.4 However, not much attention has been given to another manifestation of the creeds in the liturgical worship of the Church. Some scholars noted

3 Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, 148. 4 Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 30.

995694_JOCS_14_2012_04_Dawood.indd5694_JOCS_14_2012_04_Dawood.indd 4848 119/12/129/12/12 11:4411:44 LEX ORANDI, LEX CREDENDI 49

that the fragments of creeds in the Pauline were hymns chanted in the early churches, and are derived from the community’s tradition.5 In fact, before being set as a formal Confession of Faith, the beliefs of the people of the church was first liturgical, then creedal. One example was the controversy on the Holy Spirit’s divinity: before the Council of affirmed that the Holy Spirit is co-worshipped and co- glorified with the Father and the Son by expanding the , the argued that this faith is what was prayed and believed by the Church. The Holy Spirit was already being worshipped and glorified, and the Creed that resulted from the Council of Constantinople clarified and asserted the faith that was practiced liturgically by the Church. Basil, for instance, argued for the equality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son in his book On the Holy Spirit through what he mentioned as the use of the prepositions “and” and “with” in the liturgical worship of his church: “Lately while I pray with the people, we sometimes finish the to with the form ‘Glory to the Father with the Son, together with the Holy Spirit…”.6 For Basil, the law of prayer — the doxology chanted by the Church — is the law of faith — the Church’s belief in the equal glory given to the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son. Another example comes from the Didascalia, a third century church order of Syrian origin, which contains a Doxology for Jesus Christ that says: “To him who has power and might… To him who, in the days of was crucified and who died… To him who rose from the dead… To him who ascended to the heavens… To him who is to come with power and with glory to judge the dead and the living…”.7 It will be noted that the Doxology, which was chanted liturgically (as the Didascalia is a church order that focuses on the liturgy) is just like a Creed (written before the Nicene Creed) that is at once a profession of the faith of the believers and a prayer chanted to Christ. Furthermore, Jaroslav Pelikan noted how the law of prayer is the law of faith in the three Christian denominations of Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants: the Catholics liturgically observed the Feast of the Assump- tion of the Virgin Mary for many years before the of the bodily assumption of the Virgin was defined in 1950; the Orthodox believed in the descent of Christ into Hades as mentioned in the liturgical hymns of

5 Ibid., 13. 6 St. Basil, On the Holy Spirit, 17. 7 Diess, The Didascalia of the , 179.

995694_JOCS_14_2012_04_Dawood.indd5694_JOCS_14_2012_04_Dawood.indd 4949 119/12/129/12/12 11:4411:44 50 BISHOY DAWOOD

the Church, even though this is not mentioned in the Creed; the Protes- tants also used a Eucharistic prayer in the Waldensian liturgy to support their beliefs.8 That the law of prayer is the law of faith in the case of the Church’s hymns on the Theotokos is what I shall argue in this paper: just as the hymns preserved in the Pauline epistles are understood to be creedal formulas that proclaimed the faith of the early church in a setting that is liturgical, and as Basil affirmed the co-glory of the Spirit with the Father and the Son on the basis of a doxology; the Christology of the churches, which developed after the fifth century controversies over Christology, was preserved and proclaimed in the liturgical worship of those churches and took the form of hymns that were chanted by the believers, never taking the form of a formal Confession of Faith.

3. A Brief History of the Term Theotokos

Alexandria was the city of the orthodox fathers and of the heterodox theorists, and it may be the case that in its churches and its Catechetical School the term Theotokos was first used in the Christian world. In reac- tion to Adoptionists and Docetists, Clement and Origen of Alexandria both taught that the Logos of God took from the Virgin Mary, and within this Christological context, the first instance of the term Theotokos appears in Origen’s writings.9 Although some scholars do not think that Origen may have coined the term Theotokos, it did occur with more certainty in the later Alexandrian fathers, Alexander and Athanasius.10 Athanasius’ use of the term occurs, for instance, in his “Against the Arians”, such as in the following statement (which appealed to later during the Nestorian controversy): Now the scope and character of Holy Scripture, as we have often said, is this — it contains a double account of the Saviour; that He was ever God, and is the Son, being the Father’s Word and Radiance and Wisdom; and that afterwards for us He took flesh of a Virgin, Mary Bearer of God [Theotokos], and was made man.11

8 Pelikan, Credo, 166, 167. 9 Golden, “Origen and ”, 142. The author of this article argues that Origen did not originate the term Theotokos, but I think it is not convincing. Calling Mary Theo- tokos seems to be the inevitable conclusion of Origen’s Christology, and so it comes as no surprise when the term is found in two fragments of his exegesis of the of Luke. 10 Ibid., 143. 11 Athanasius, “Against the Arians”, 409.

995694_JOCS_14_2012_04_Dawood.indd5694_JOCS_14_2012_04_Dawood.indd 5050 119/12/129/12/12 11:4411:44 LEX ORANDI, LEX CREDENDI 51

The term Theotokos was also accepted by Apollinarius of Laodicea, who, taking the Alexandrian conception of the human mind as the image of the Logos to its logical extreme, rejected a human mind in Christ and believed that the Logos of God served as the mind of the human Christ.12 Apollinarianism was a reaction to the Antiochian School’s tendency of speaking of “two Sons” (the and son of Mary) conjoined to each other in Christ, which seemed to Apollinarius as a separation. Rather, the incarnation meant that there was a unity of the divine and human natures in Christ, where the divine Logos fulfils the role of the animating spirit and human mind of Christ.13 There is one nature that results from the union, which he called the “one incarnate nature of the divine Logos” (mían fúsin tou qeou lógou sesarkwménjn).14 Since the Virgin Mary gave birth to the one incarnate nature, she can thus be called Theotokos. There was a reaction to Apollinarianism in the East by the , who argued that Apollinarianism consisted of a soteriological problem. The Logos of God, in their thought, had to assume the whole human nature, including the human soul and mind, in order to save it. Gregory Nazianzen, for example, mentioned: If it was that He might destroy the condemnation by sanctifying like by like, then as He needed flesh for the sake of the flesh which had incurred con- demnation, and soul for the sake of our soul, so, too, He needed mind for the sake of mind.”15

Hence, in Christ there are two complete natures (divine and human) that are conjoined substantially.16 Though a different Christological doctrine than the Apollinarian one, the Cappadocians also called the Virgin Mary Theotokos, because she gave birth to the two conjoined natures of Christ. It was precisely the Christology presupposed in the term Theotokos that became the centre of much debate in the fifth century, because the Christo- logical issues were concerned with explaining the Christian concept of soteriology. As such, to use the words of Norman Russell, the importance of the single term Theotokos lays in the fact that it “encapsulates the entire plan of salvation.”17

12 Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 289. 13 Ibid., 292. 14 Ibid., 293. 15 Gregory Nazienzen, “To Cledonius the Against Apollinarius”, 441. 16 Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 297. 17 Russell, Cyril of Alexandria, 44.

995694_JOCS_14_2012_04_Dawood.indd5694_JOCS_14_2012_04_Dawood.indd 5151 119/12/129/12/12 11:4411:44 52 BISHOY DAWOOD

The Antiochian School was sometimes at odds with the Alexandrian School, particularly on the issues of Scriptural exegesis (the former mostly emphasizing the historical-literal and typological exegesis; the latter mostly emphasizing the allegorical exegesis) and Christology (the former mostly emphasizing, as in Kelly’s categories, a “Word-man” Christology; the latter mostly emphasizing a “Word-flesh” Christology).18 The Anti- ochian, “Word-man” Christology spoke of two complete natures conjoined in Christ, and as such reacted against the Apollinarian “Word-flesh” Christology, which spoke of the divine nature uniting with the flesh and not with a human mind. In 428 A.D., an Antiochian priest, Anastasius, was invited by of Constantinople to preach at Hagia Sophia. Anastasius’ words came as a shock to Constantinopolitans who were used to calling the Virgin Mary Theotokos: “Let no one call Mary Theotokos, for Mary was only a human being, and it is impossible that God should be born of a human being.”19 Nestorius, an Antiochian himself, agreed with Anastasius’ , and he preferred to call Mary Christotokos rather than Theotokos. The Antiochian reaction to the term Theotokos, beginning particularly with the teachings of Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mepsuestia, was a result of the rejection of Apollinarian Christology. Nestorius’ Antiochian Christology, and especially his objection to Theotokos, brought opposition within Constantinople — and even greater opposition came from across the Mediterranean by Cyril of Alexandria. It is noteworthy that before the doctrinal (and political) conflict between Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius of Constantinople, there was also a conflict between Theophilus of Alexandria (Cyril’s uncle) and the Antiochian of Constantinople (a student of Diodore), the latter who was highly respected later by the Church as a Scriptural exegete, but who never gave Mary the title Theotokos.20 According to Cyril, Nestorius’ and the Antiochians’ talk of two con- joined natures in Christ sounded like the joining of the five curtains with rings in the tabernacle (Ex 26:6), which were actually separate but were artificially held together by the rings.21 Also, by rejecting the term Theo- tokos, Cyril thought the Antiochian Christology was Adoptionist, where “the Logos has not been made man but has indwelt a man born of a

18 Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 281. 19 Quoted in Russell, Cyril of Alexandria, 33. 20 Graef, Mary, 74. 21 Cyril, “Against Nestorius II”. In: Russell, Cyril of Alexandria, 149.

995694_JOCS_14_2012_04_Dawood.indd5694_JOCS_14_2012_04_Dawood.indd 5252 119/12/129/12/12 11:4411:44 LEX ORANDI, LEX CREDENDI 53

woman.”22 In fact, Cyril argued that if the Antiochians and Nestorius speak of a conjoining or indwelling after the birth from the Virgin in an Adop- tionist sense, then the Virgin cannot even be called Christotokos: “For if she is Christotokos, she also be Theotokos… and if she is not Theotokos, neither is she Christotokos.”23 As such, Cyril disapproved the Antiochian language of “conjoining” and emphasized the unity of the divine and human natures in one incarnate nature. In a letter to some Egyptian , Cyril used an analogy (which he used later in correspondence with Nestorius) of a mother giving birth to a human being: just as the human body and soul are united in the human being, and the mother bears a whole living being; in the same sense the Logos and the complete human nature are united, and the Virgin Mary bore and gave birth to the one united nature of Christ. Thus, she is Theotokos.24 The controversy did not end with letters that aimed at clarifying the different . With Nestorius’ uncompromising attitude towards the use of the term Theotokos and the Christology it pre- supposed, Cyril drew a list of Twelve in his Third Letter to Nestorius. In summary, the anathemas assert that Christ was not a divinely inspired man, but that the Logos of the Father became flesh, was united hypostatically with the flesh, and no one can speak of two prosopa or hypostases after the union. No one can attribute different sayings and actions to each hypostasis, since that would imply separation, but the actions are of one hypostasis. Since Emmanuel is truly God, therefore the Virgin Mary is Theotokos, and since God became flesh, therefore his flesh is life-giving, and God experienced suffering, death, and in the flesh.25 Certainly, there was different uses of terminology, which caused each side to misunderstand the other: where Cyril spoke of one and one hypostasis after the union, the Antiochians spoke of two physis and one after the union.26 John of Antioch, Andrew of Samosata and of Cyrus, all who were of the Antiochian School, rose to the defence of their friend Nesto- rius against the Twelve Anathemas. Theodoret, for instance, responded to what he saw as Apollinarian language used in Cyril’s Anathemas and

22 Cyril, Against Those Who Are Unwilling, 7. 23 Ibid., 21. 24 Cyril, “Letter 1”. In: McEnerney, St. Cyril of Alexandria, 21, 2. 25 Cyril, “Third Letter to Nestorius (Letter 17)”. In: McEnerney, St. Cyril of Alexan- dria, 90-2. 26 Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 315, 318.

995694_JOCS_14_2012_04_Dawood.indd5694_JOCS_14_2012_04_Dawood.indd 5353 119/12/129/12/12 11:4411:44 54 BISHOY DAWOOD

other writings. In fact, Cyril did use the Apollinarian phrase “one incar- nate nature of the divine Logos.”27 Interestingly, though, Theodoret’s response accepted the term Theotokos with some qualifications, but was anxious with the language of “one hypostasis”, believing that it inevitably expressed mixture and confusion of the natures.28 The mixture of natures into one nature (physis) was evidently Apollinarian for Theodoret: “After introducing the conception of the mixture under other terms, he brings it into his arguments; for there he clearly states the flesh of the Lord to be soulless.”29 However, Theodoret was mistaken to associate Cyrillian Christology with that of Apollinarius’. Cyril consistently mentioned that Christ had a human soul and mind: “the Word by having united to himself hypo- statically flesh animated by a rational soul, inexplicably and incompre- hensibly became man.”30 After the in 431 A.D. and its acceptance of the Twelve Anathemas against Nestorius, Cyril wrote an explanation of the Anathemas, which responded to the Antiochian anxiety of his Christology: “We declare that there was no confusion or mingling or blending of his essence with his flesh. But we say that the Word was united with flesh endowed with a rational soul in a manner that is trans- cendent and ineffable and known only to himself.”31 Although the Antiochians reacted with dismay when they were not represented at the Council of Ephesus, John of Antioch, who held a sepa- rate council and anathematized Cyril, eventually negotiated with Cyril to arrive at a Christological formula that both sides could agree to and thus end the . The “Symbol of Union”, sent by John to Cyril, affirmed the double of Jesus Christ; that “a union was made of his two natures”; that the union was without fusion; that the Virgin Mary is Theotokos “because God the Word was made flesh and was made man and from his very conception he united to himself a temple taken from her”; and that even though theologians speak of the sayings and actions of Christ as pertaining to two natures (physis), they are actually pertain- ing to one person (prosopon).32 Although the Antiochian language of “one

27 Cyril thought the source was Athanasius, but was mistaken. Cf. Russell, Cyril of Alexandria, 41. 28 Theodoret, “Counter-Statements”, 26. 29 Ibid., 31. 30 Cyril, “Letter 4”. In: McEnerney, St. Cyril of Alexandria, 39. 31 Cyril, “An Explanation of the Twelve Chapters”. In: Russell, Cyril of Alexandria, 179. 32 Cyril, “Letter 38”. In: McEnerney, St. Cyril of Alexandria, 145-6.

995694_JOCS_14_2012_04_Dawood.indd5694_JOCS_14_2012_04_Dawood.indd 5454 119/12/129/12/12 11:4411:44 LEX ORANDI, LEX CREDENDI 55

prosopon” and “union of two natures (physis)” were used in the Symbol, the formula was accepted by Cyril.33 Finally, the doctrine of the Theotokos was accepted as orthodox, even though further debates on unsettled issues in Christology continued and brought about another schism at the in 451 A.D.

4. Marian Liturgical Devotion in the Coptic Orthodox Church

After the Council of Ephesus, hymns of honour to the Theotokos multi- plied throughout the Christian world, especially in the East. These hymns at the same time affirmed the Christological doctrines that are presup- posed by the term Theotokos. In this paper, I will focus on the hymns known as the Theotokia’s, which are chanted in the Coptic Orthodox Church during the Midnight Tasbeha (Praises) vigil service. There are seven Theotokia’s in the Annual Psalmody Book of the Coptic Orthodox Church — one for each day of the week. According to popular opinion, the Theotokia’s were written by Cyril of Alexandria, yet it is perhaps more prudent to think of them as a continuation of the spiritual tradition that the Church inherited through Cyril’s writings. There is some evidence of themes and words borrowed from Cyril’s writings, such as his fourth , that are present in these hymns. There is no Creed that resulted from the Council of Ephesus (or Chal- cedon, which is not accepted by the Coptic Orthodox Church), but the words of the Theotokia’s serve as the creed of the Church, showing that the law of prayer is the law of faith. To this day, theologians, and quote these hymns in their about the Christological faith of the Church, and use these words as an inspired primary source to reflect on and defend their theology.

The longest Theotokia is the one chanted on Sunday (i.e. in the Saturday night vigil). This Theotokia focuses on the theme of Mary as the second Tabernacle, and finds fulfillment of the in the Virgin Mary by describing how everything in the Tabernacle is typologically analogous to the Virgin — for example, it speaks of the Virgin Mary as the golden vessel, where gold resembled her purity, and the Manna as Christ, the Bread of Life who gives his Body and Blood. The second part has the following words:

33 Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 329.

995694_JOCS_14_2012_04_Dawood.indd5694_JOCS_14_2012_04_Dawood.indd 5555 119/12/129/12/12 11:4411:44 56 BISHOY DAWOOD

The Ark was overlaid, roundabout with gold, and it was made, with wood that did not decay. It foretold the sign, of God the Word, who became man, without separation. One nature out of two, a holy divinity, consubstantial with the Father, and incorruptible. A holy humanity, begotten without seed, consubstantial with us, according to the . This which He has taken, from you O undefiled, He made one with Him, as a hypostasis. Wherefore everyone, magnifies you, O my Lady the Theotokos, the ever-holy. And we too, hope to win mercy, through your intercession, with the lover of humankind.34

This part of the hymn shows that while the faithful are gathered in prayer and show their devotion for the Virgin Mary, they are at the same time proclaiming their Christological faith: that Christ is consubstantial with the Father and humanity, that he has one nature (physis) out of two, that the union was hypostatic and occurred without separation, and that the Virgin Mary is named Theotokos. The entire Theotokia also serves as a lesson in Alexandrian biblical exegesis, as it compares the Tabernacle and all its contents with the Virgin, and as such it nourishes the believers that chant this hymn in an Alexandria context that emphasizes the Alexan- drian thought on Christology against that of the Antiochian.

The Monday Theotokia compares the first Adam and Eve with the second Adam (Christ) and Eve (Mary), where the former bring death and sorrow to the world and the latter bring life, light, and joy. This Theotokia, though, is one of the strongest in terms of its Christological claims: He who is, who was, who has come, and who is to come again. Jesus Christ the Word, who was incarnate, without change, became a perfect man. Without confusion, or commingling or separation, of any kind, after the union. But He is of one physis, one hypostasis, and one prosopon, of God the Word. He shone in the flesh, taken from the Virgin, without the seed of man, in order to save us.35

This section of the Theotokia stresses the Alexandrian terminology of one physis, one hypostasis, and one prosopon after the union, yet it also accepts the use of what is officially written in the that

34 Sunday Theotokia. In: The Holy Psalmody, 88, 89. All the verses here are edited by myself, as there are many grammatical and spelling errors in the original English translation. 35 Monday Theotokia. In: The Holy Psalmody, 141, 142.

995694_JOCS_14_2012_04_Dawood.indd5694_JOCS_14_2012_04_Dawood.indd 5656 119/12/129/12/12 11:4411:44 LEX ORANDI, LEX CREDENDI 57

considers both the Alexandria and Antiochian restrictions of an incarnation without change, confusion, separation nor division, despite the fact that the Coptic Orthodox Church has never officially accepted the Council of Chalce- don and its Definition — however, the hymn serves as a law of faith in the Coptic Church, and perhaps that could be used as a point of reference in unity talks between the Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian churches.

The Tuesday Theotokia speaks of the burning bush that saw and compares it to the Virgin bearing the fire of the Divinity without being consumed, which in turn glorifies the life of chastity and honours Mary as the Ever-Virgin. The Theotokia also has its Christological creed, inter- mingled with contemplation on the Old Testament linked with the and in a spirit of prayer: If someone contemplates, about you, O holy Virgin, and Theotokos. And about the mystery, full of wonder, which dwelt in you, for our salvation. He would keep silent, about the unutterable, but would make us, rise up to praise. Because of the greatness, of the wonderful, Maker of all, good things. For the Living Word, of God the Father, came down to give the Law, on Mount Sinai. He covered the peak, of the mountain, with smoke, darkness, mist, and with storms. Through the sound, of the trumpets, He was teaching, the people standing with fear. He also descended on you, O speaking mountain, that spoke with humility, and philanthropic love. And likewise, He took flesh from you, without change, a rational body. Consubstantial with us, and perfect, and also has, a rational soul. He remained God, as He is, and became, a perfect man. So as to abolish, the iniquity of Adam, and that He may save, those who perished. And to make him a citizen, of heaven, and restore his leadership, according to His great mercy. For of His own will, and the pleasure of His Father, and the Holy Spirit, He came and saved us.36

It may be noted that this Theotokia connects the law of prayer and con- templation along with proclaiming the law of faith, which the believer, in a prayerful mode, accepts as a mystery that cannot be understood nor uttered, but can be proclaimed in praise of what God has done for human salvation. It is also worthy of note that this Theotokia asserts that Christ

36 Tuesday Theotokia. In: The Holy Psalmody, 158-160.

995694_JOCS_14_2012_04_Dawood.indd5694_JOCS_14_2012_04_Dawood.indd 5757 119/12/129/12/12 11:4411:44 58 BISHOY DAWOOD

has a rational soul, and that he had to be perfectly and fully human in order to save humanity, as taught by the Cappadocian Fathers in their theology against Apollinarianism. Likewise, the Cappadocian Trinitarian faith is proclaimed in the end of this section, which is a refrain used throughout this Theotokia, particularly through the use of the preposition “and”, following Basil’s defence of the use of such a preposition.

The Wednesday Theotokia highly exalts the Virgin Mary as the choice of God the Father, and calls her the City of God, Jerusalem, the Second Heaven, the bridal chamber of the Bridegroom, who is exalted above the Cherubim and honoured more than the Seraphim because she became the Temple of one of the . Then, in a spirit of prayer, the believers sing: A virginal feast, today inspires our tongues, to give praise to, Mary the Theotokos. On account of Him who was born, for us in the City of David, our Saviour Jesus, Christ the Lord. Come all you nations, so we may bless her, for she has become the Mother, and also a Virgin. Hail to you O Virgin, the pure and incorrupt one, for the Logos of the Father, came and took flesh from you. Hail to the chosen vessel, which is without blemish, that is of your true, and perfect virginity. Hail to the Paradise, speaking for Christ, who became the Second Adam, for the sake of the first Adam. Hail to the uniting place, of the inseparable natures, that came together in one place, without commingling. Hail to the bridal chamber, decorated in every way, for the true Bridegroom, who united with humanity. Hail to the rational bush, which is natural, that the fire of divinity, did not consume. Hail to the handmaiden and mother, the Virgin and the heaven, who carried in the flesh, He who sits on the Cherubim. For this we rejoice and sing, with the holy angels, and we joyfully proclaim, ‘Glory to God in the highest.’ ‘And on earth peace, good will towards humans,’ for He who is glorified forever, was pleased with you. The Father looked from heaven, and found no one like you, He sent His Only-Begotten, who came and took flesh from you.37

This hymn has less direct Christological claims but has more to do with praising the role of the Theotokos as the place where God chose to unite with humanity, without commingling. Interestingly, the hymn speaks of

37 Wednesday Theotokia. In: The Holy Psalmody, 174-177.

995694_JOCS_14_2012_04_Dawood.indd5694_JOCS_14_2012_04_Dawood.indd 5858 119/12/129/12/12 11:4411:44 LEX ORANDI, LEX CREDENDI 59

the Virgin as pure and incorrupt (in contrast to inheriting corruption due to the Fall of Adam and Eve), who was chosen by God the Father who found no one like her in history, and who became a chosen vessel with- out blemish, all of which perhaps sounds like the doctrine of the , although the Coptic Orthodox Church has never proclaimed it as a doctrine and does not presently speak favourably about this Catholic doctrine.38

The Thursday Theotokia reflects on the Nativity scene, and has many Christo- logical claims scattered throughout the hymn instead of dedicating one section to proclaim the Christological faith, unlike the other Theotokia’s. Here are a few of those parts: What mind or what speech, or what sound can attain, the unutterable expres- sion, of God’s love for humankind? The One and Only Word, begotten before all ages, as the divinity without body, from the Father. And He Himself also, was born bodily, without change and without confusion, from His mother only. And also after she gave birth to Him, she remained a virgin, and thus He has showed, that she is the Theotokos.39 O what mysterious things, of God that are for, Mary the Theotokos, the Ever-Virgin. For she is where, two were united, the undefiled virginity, and the true birth. For marriage, did not precede birth, neither did the birth, loosen her virginity. For He who was born is God, born without pain from the Father, and He was also born according to the flesh, without pain from the Virgin. One nature out of two, divinity and humanity, wherefore the Magi worship, silently yet uttering His divinity.40 When the One of the Trinity, consubstantial with the Father, looked upon our tribulations, and our bitter slavery, He shook the heaven of heavens, and came to the womb of the Virgin, He became human like us, except for sin only. When He was born in Bethlehem, according to the prophecies, He saved and redeemed us, for we are His people. He did not cease to be divine, He came and became the Son of Man, for He the true God, who came and saved us.41

38 The Coptic Orthodox Church has used Protestant polemics against the in defending the Coptic positions on issues that seem to divide the churches, such as the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, but perhaps the use of Theotokia as a primary source of the faith of the Coptic Church may enlighten the perspec- tive of the Coptic Church’s actual stance on the issue and lead to further the ecumenical discussions between Non-Chalcedonians and Catholics. 39 Thursday Theotokia. In: The Holy Psalmody, 188, 189. 40 Ibid., 193, 194. 41 Ibid., 200.

995694_JOCS_14_2012_04_Dawood.indd5694_JOCS_14_2012_04_Dawood.indd 5959 119/12/129/12/12 11:4411:44 60 BISHOY DAWOOD

This Theotokia has some interesting claims about the Virgin Mary, show- ing that Church believes that marriage was not necessary to bear the Word of God, and that she remained a Virgin after giving birth. The belief that she is the Theotokos is grounded on the belief that she remained a Virgin after giving birth. Another interesting claim is that the birth was miracu- lous, such that the Virgin did not experience the pains of childbirth, and that is said to be similar to the generation of the Son from the Father with- out pain. When considered along with what is mentioned on the purity and incorruptibility of the Virgin Mary in the Wednesday Theotokia, the claim that the Virgin did not experience the pains of childbirth adds to theory that the Coptic Orthodox Church is more in-line with the Catholic thought of the immaculate conception, since the curse of Eve was not experienced by the Virgin, and as such she was preserved by grace from inheriting the consequences of the Fall of Adam and Eve. The hymn continues to describe the Nativity scene, where the Magi approach a human baby and worship him, recognizing that he is at once both divine and human, one nature out of two, united without change and without confusion.

The Friday Theotokia does not make any direct Christological claims as the other Theotokia’s, but in its refrain it proclaims the faith of the Church in Christ’s recapitulation of humanity and the theosis of humanity, which is called the communicatio idiomatum: “He took what is ours, and gave us what is His, we praise and glorify Him, and exalt Him.”42

The Saturday Theotokia, finally, is mainly a hymn that includes typo- logical interpretations of Old Testament objects and themes to the Virgin Mary and Christ, and only affirms the belief in the incarnation for the sake of redemption and salvation of humanity.

5. Conclusion

Unlike the popular misunderstanding of the term Theotokos, which sup- poses that Christians either worship Mary, that Mary generated God’s essence, or that Mary was the mother of Christ’s divinity; the Christian doctrine of the Theotokos affirms that the Logos of the Father was incar- nate and took flesh from the Virgin Mary, and because the complete human

42 Friday Theotokia. In: The Holy Psalmody, 210.

995694_JOCS_14_2012_04_Dawood.indd5694_JOCS_14_2012_04_Dawood.indd 6060 119/12/129/12/12 11:4411:44 LEX ORANDI, LEX CREDENDI 61

nature, animated with a human soul and mind, was united with the divine nature in the one incarnate nature of the Logos, without mingling, confu- sion, or alteration, the Virgin Mary bore and gave birth to God in this context. The term Theotokos presupposes a Christological doctrine, and it was the Christology implied by the term Theotokos that became an issue of controversy between Cyril and Nestorius in the fifth century A.D. With the Council of Ephesus’ of the of the doctrine of the Theotokos, we have seen that the Church Councils did not issue a Creed that proclaims the Church’s Christology and the use of the term Theotokos; instead, what arose was the use the use of hymns in liturgical worship that affirmed the faith of Church, where the believers chanted hymns of praise and asked for the intercessions of the Theotokos, and where the law of Christological faith was made evident in the law of prayer to the Theotokos. We finally considered concrete examples of how the Theotokia’s of the Coptic Orthodox Church show that creedal affirmations are made in liturgical worship in the Eastern Christian churches rather than exclusively in the conventional form of a Confession of Faith.

Bibliography

Ali, Abd.Y. The Quran Translation. Elmhurst, NY, 2000. Athanasius. “Against the Arians.” In: Ph. Schaff, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 2nd ser., vol. IV. Edinburgh 1998. Basil. On the Holy Spirit. Crestwood, NY, 2001. Cyril. Against Those Who Are Unwilling to Confess that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos. G. Dion (transl.). Rollinsford, NH, 2004. Diess, L. (ed.). The Didascalia of the Apostles. Collegeville 1979. Golden, I. “Origen and Mariology.” GOTR 36, 2 (1991), 141-153. Graef, H.M. Mary. A History of Doctrine and Devotion. Vol. 1. London- 1963. Gregory Nazienzen. “To Cledonius the Priest Against Apollinarius” (Ep. CI.). In: Ph. Schaff, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 2nd ser., vol. VII. Edinburgh 1998. The Holy Psalmody. Ridgewood, NY Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Creeds. New York 19723. —. Early Christian Doctrines. New York 1978. McEnerney, J.I. (transl.). St. Cyril of Alexandria: Letters 1-50. Washington, DC, 1987. Meyendorff, J. Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes. New York 1974.

995694_JOCS_14_2012_04_Dawood.indd5694_JOCS_14_2012_04_Dawood.indd 6161 119/12/129/12/12 11:4411:44 62 BISHOY DAWOOD

Pelikan, J. Credo: Historical and Theological Guide to Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the . New Haven-London 2003. Russell, N. Cyril of Alexandria. London-New York 2000. Theodoret. “Counter-Statements of Theodoret.” In: Ph. Schaff, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Vol. III. Edinburgh 1996.

Bishoy Dawood Faculty of Theology University of St. Michael’s College 81 St. Mary Street Toronto, ON, MSS 1J4, Canada [email protected]

995694_JOCS_14_2012_04_Dawood.indd5694_JOCS_14_2012_04_Dawood.indd 6262 119/12/129/12/12 11:4411:44

Top View