Mystical theology of Mary

[Stephen]

Christ is Risen!
Indeed He is Risen!

Greetings,
I have a seeker who I would like to read some mystical theology concerning Mary as the second Eve - or any topics on Mary in the mystical vain. He has been asking me about Orthodox thoughts on the feminine principle of the Shekinah/Sophia from having seen the D.V. Code movie and I thought that I would try to see if I could find something on Mary that would show him the "right believing" side of Christianity on this item. What would be some suggested essays I can link him to?

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

God Bless,
Stephen

[Olga]

My apologies for this lengthy post, but I hope it answers a few questions. Below are some excerpts from an as-yet unpublished article on iconography which deals with non-canonical icons, both those of "historical" provenance, and of more recent appearance, where artists have produced works which resemble icons in artistic appearance, but whose content, artistic and theological, is either suspect or frankly heretical. There are statements in what I have reproduced which are directly relevant to the idea of the "divine feminine" which has reared is head yet again as a result of the popularity of the Da Vinci Code. Sources include iconographers' handbooks, Ouspensky, Bingham, and other respected authorities, as well as statements made by artists who have produced suspect works. The following excerpts refer to the icons "Christ the Wisdom of God" which began to appear in the 15th century.

We encounter a problem similar to the “personification” icons, such as Sophia The Divine Wisdom. Here the eyes, nose, and mouth in the inner circle substitute parts of God’s figurative or poetic “body” for the whole, which always results in something grotesque. For some reason God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are not represented in the innermost circle. We assume the original painter and his viewers were sincere Orthodox Christians who were influenced by ideas coming in from the west, and considered this theme to be something pious.

In our society there are many different forms of the so-called “New Age” pagan religion, among which is found also “The Cult of the All-seeing Eye”. This icon is not suitable for reproduction.

Christ Holy Wisdom of God


This rendition resembles the Angel of Blessed Silence, in that Christ is portrayed as a youthful winged figure, though this time enthroned. He is dressed as a prince, with a crown on his head, bearing a staff of regal authority, and is surrounded by a mandorla, which signifies Divine Glory. His halo does not have the usual nine-bar cross, nor the three letters of the divine name. Above him is a conventional figure of Christ in the orans pose, also surrounded by a mandorla. Uppermost in the composition is a book on a stand, probably a Gospel, flanked by a row of angels on either side, who are gesturing in homage downwards to Christ in the centre of the composition. Immediately below them is a band filled with stars, denoting their dwelling in the heavenly realm. The Mother of God and St John the Baptist are standing on either side of the throne in supplication.

Comments: Three elements here are particularly problematic. Firstly, this work is a contradiction of the canons stipulating that Christ is not to be portrayed in symbolic form, as a personification of an attribute of His. Secondly, while this was possibly not the intention of the iconographer who originally devised this composition, the presence of two figures representing Christ suggest the Wisdom figure is a fourth person of the Trinity, proceeding from the Son, and worshipped by the Mother of God and the Baptist. Thirdly, the face of the winged “Christ” is at best androgynous, neither masculine nor feminine, and, in some renditions, obviously feminine. Ouspensky mentions the special decree of the Holy Synod of the Russian Church proclaimed on May 21, 1722. This decree prohibited a whole series of icons which were deemed to be “contrary to nature, to history, and to truth itself”. Included in this list was “…the image of the Wisdom of God in the form of a young girl…” More recent decrees, such as those issued by the Moscow Patriarchate in May, 1935, and by the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad in October of the same year, also forbid such portrayals. These decrees were issued in response to the growing popularity of the Sophian heresies promoted by Vladimir Soloviev, and priests Paul Florensky and Sergei Bulgakov. Below are some extracts indicating their tendencies:

The concept of Sophia occupies an exceptional place in Soloviev’s writings where it underwent all kinds of metamorphoses. He would associate it with Christ, with the “soul of the world” (World Soul), with “ideal and eternal universal humanity”, with the Mother of God, with the “guardian Angel of the world”.

Soloviev’s Sophia acquired also a completely different spiritually questionable aspect -- that of Eternal Femininity (Die ewige Weisslichkeit) which arose on the basis of Romanticism, rabbinic cabbala and stormy gnostic fantasy. This feminine aspect of Sophia had a special personal meaning for Soloviev. It was a kind of mystical experience of love which accompanied him all his life. “Sophia” inspired not only his poetry but his entire philosophic creativity. For Soloviev the philosopher she was not so much a speculative, as a mystically-real phenomenon (no matter how paradoxical it may sound). Soloviev (as also later Fr S. Bulgakov) had a visual perception of Sophia and he described his mystical encounters with her image in his innermost lyrical poems which subsequently inspired the whole generation of Russian symbolists (A. Blok and A. Bely, in particular).

We would not speak of this obvious spiritual delusion and somewhat sinister metaphysical “romance” of Soloviev with “Sophia” had they not persisted in the teaching of two famous theological thinkers of the 20th century - priests Pavel Florensky and Sergei Bulgakov, who today have many followers in Russia and in many other countries. These direct disciples and followers of Vladimir Soloviev have absorbed not only the gnostic-pantheistic ambiguity of their teacher, but all his “turbidity of erotic delusion” (archpriest Georgii Florovsky) as well.

Archbishop Seraphim Sobolev speaks of the Sophian doctrine of Florensky and Bulgakov as a “truly heretical teaching with a gnostic and pagan world view”, leading to “dogmatic chaos”. With regard to Fr S. Bulgakov’s theology, this Archbishop writes that “it is not only an abnormal development of theological thought, but also the most serious sin. According to the Fathers, the gravest sin is the sin against the Orthodox faith because it is not rooted in excusable weaknesses of human nature, but is a sin of our spiritual nature depriving us of the grace of the Holy Spirit.

The following excerpts refer to a contemporary "icon" on the same subject, where the artist provides a justification for his portrayal of Christ in a most heretical manner, and a critique rebutting this rationale.

Sophia

According to the artist:



Various names are used for God in the Jewish Scriptures. “Wisdom” is among the names used most frequently, and God is always feminine when she is called Wisdom. "She is a reflection of the eternal light, untarnished mirror of God’s active power, image of his goodness" (Wisdom 7:26). It is Wisdom who creates and orders the world, making manifest the divine will. And it is Wisdom who delights to be among the human race, teaching us her ways.



In the Byzantine Church, these references to Wisdom are considered references to Christ. Churches like Hagia Sophia in Istanbul are dedicated to Christ. From the Middle Ages on, icons depicting Christ as an androgynous figure, flanked by Mary and John the Baptist, have been painted in Russia and elsewhere. It is important now to take the next step and depict Wisdom – Sophia – as the woman Sacred Scriptures describe.



Looking honestly at our ancient tradition, it is clear that the mystery of Christ cannot be described in masculine terms alone. Because of historical and cultural circumstances, the second person of the Trinity became a male human being. Before the Incarnation, however, that person was described as “she”. As the Incarnation continues to unfold after Christ’s resurrection and ascension, it is again the feminine Sophia who expresses the mystery - as pointed out by the Russian theologian Soloviev.


Comments: Entire theologies of Holy Wisdom as the “feminine” side of God appeared centuries ago, which has been given renewed credence by “progressive” religious writers, as well as by neo-pagans. We have already seen that God the Father, being invisible, indescribable and incomprehensible, cannot be properly described as having gender in the human sense. The term Father is symbolic, and it is also the term used by Christ Himself to refer to the first Person of the Holy Trinity during His life on earth. While the word "wisdom" is of the feminine gender in Greek, Latin, Hebrew and Slavonic (as well as a number of modern languages), it is purely a grammatical gender, and any notion that this somehow denotes “the divine feminine” is mistaken. The word "wisdom" in any historic language also greatly predates the advent of Christianity. Let us look again at the artist's comment:


Because of historical and cultural circumstances, the second person of the Trinity became a male human being. Before the Incarnation, however, that person was described as “she”.

“That person” pre-incarnation was also described as the Word, in Greek Logos. What then would these “progressives” make of Logos, which is masculine in the Greek language? And is of various grammatical genders in other languages, ancient and modern?

On the Orthodox view of Mary as the new Eve, a good place to start is the text (especially the canons) of the Vigil of any feast to the Mother of God, particularly of the Annunciation. Feel free to email me privately if you wish, I have these services on file in English.

[Herman Blaydoe]

I suggest you start (and probably end) here:

Akathist to the Theotokos (http://www.monachos.net/other/akathist_to_theotokos.shtml)

We pray what we believe and believe what we pray. This seems a fairly comprehensive "summing up".

[M.C. Steenberg]

I suggest you start (and probably end) here: Akathist to the Theotokos

Though the Protoevangelion of James would be a good second.

XB, Matthew

[Stephen]

I will pass these along. Thanks!