Thursday, August 27, 2026

Akathist in Honor of the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos


 

Kontakion 1

O Chosen One of all generations, Mother of God and Queen, Who went up from earth to Heaven, reverent hymns upon Thy most honorable Dormition do we Thy servants offer to Thee, O Theotokos. Having victory over death free us from every mortal danger that we may cry to Thee:

Rejoice, O Joyful One, Who in Thy Dormition hast not forsaken us!

Ekos 1

An angelic messenger was sent to announce to the Theotokos Her ascent above and the coming unto Her of Her Son and God; standing in radiance because of Her, he cried out:

Rejoice, O most joyful Mother of the King!

Rejoice, Heavenly Queen, Mother of the God and Lord of Heaven and earth!

Rejoice, Thou Who art honored by the most exalted descent unto Thee of Thy Son and God!

Rejoice, Thou Who art magnified by the message of Thy departure unto Thy Son!

Rejoice, O chosen by God of all generations! Rejoice, holy vessel of God the Word!

Rejoice, fulfillment of prophetic foretelling!

Rejoice, most honorable crown of the disciples! Rejoice, embellishment and authority of kings!

Rejoice, adornment of hierarchs and goodness of priests!

Rejoice, O elevation of divinely wise monastics to the Kingdom on high!

Rejoice, Thou Who didst open the gates of Paradise to the Christian race whoever blesseth Thee!

Rejoice, O Joyful One, Who in Thy Dormition hast not forsaken us!

Kontakion 2

Upon seeing the apostolic choir by an all-powerful command being presented upon clouds from the ends of the earth for Thy most honorable Dormition, O most blameless, One, the hierarchs Dionysius the heavenly initiate, Hierotheus the wondrous, Timothy, all with the majestic honor of the priesthood cried out unto God: Alleluia!

Ekos 2

All intelligent creation, the chief leaders of the angelic orders, came together with their King, Who received into His most life-giving hands the soul of His Mother, while Peter with fervent faith and abundant tears exclaimed to Her, crying out:

Rejoice, Mother of the Creator, ascending to the world on high!

Rejoice, Thou Who wast taken above the heavens, being more spacious than Heaven!

Rejoice, Thou Who didst sanctify the four elements with Thine ascent!

Rejoice, Thou Who brought gladness unto the heavenly with Thy passage above!

Rejoice, Thou Who are received into the most splendid Jerusalem on high!

Rejoice, Thou Who are entering most joyfully the temples not made with hands! Rejoice, Queen of the cherubim and seraphim!

Rejoice, Sovereign Lady of the archangels and angels!

Rejoice, refuge and deliverance of the faithful! Rejoice, help and defense of Thy inheritance!

Rejoice, O intercessor unto God for all the Christian world!

Rejoice, O all-good bestower of all that is good!

Rejoice, O Joyful One, Who in Thy Dormition hast not forsaken us!

Kontakion 3

By the power of the Most High was Thomas taken from India, since by the will of God he had not been brought to the most honorable Dormition of the Mother of God, and standing before Her life-bearing tomb, he stooped down to see and understood that She had ascended to Heaven in the body, and believing, he cried out: Alleluia!

Ekos 3

The disciple, having thoughts within himself, since by Divine Providence he had not been brought to the funeral procession of the Mother of God with the others, rejoiced in Her immortal Dormition, crying out to Her these things:

Rejoice, Thou Who wast taken from the earth in the hands of Thy Son!

Rejoice, Thou Who didst ascend on high to enjoy His glory!

Rejoice, Thou Who was escorted above by all the leaders of the angels!

Rejoice, Thou Who wast elevated by the cherubim to Heaven and above Heaven!

Rejoice, Thou Who wast extolled with majestic hymns at the gates of Heaven by the supreme hosts!

Rejoice, Thou Who was surrounded and blessed by all the heavenly inhabitants!

Rejoice, O earthly heaven raised up unto the tabernacle on high!

Rejoice, O throne of the Lord, Who ascended from earth into the heavenly Kingdom!

Rejoice, O our mediator and strong defense!

Rejoice, surety of sinners unto salvation!

Rejoice, Queen of Christians and after God the hope of the heavenly Kingdom!

Rejoice, Mother of Life, and after the Lord, unto us hope of life eternal!

Rejoice, O Joyful One, Who in Thy Dormition hast not forsaken us!

Kontakion 4

Having within himself a storm of disbelieving thoughts, the Hebrew Aphthonius, seeing the God-bearing Apostles carrying the all-venerable body of the all-honorable Mother of God, rushed to overturn it; but suddenly, with blindness in his eyes and with his hands severed, clinging and hanging from the bier, in faith he confessed Her to be the Mother of God, crying out to God: Alleluia!

Ekos 4

The initiates and eyewitnesses of the Word, having heard the angels singing loftiest hymns during the burial of the God-received body of the Mother of God, and being desirous to give honor pleasing to God, in unity hastened to chant, saying:

Rejoice, Thou Who received good tidings of Thy coming into the Kingdom on high!

Rejoice, Thou Who from Gabriel at the Annunciation received the revered prize of the Paradise of joy!

Rejoice, Thou Who didst illumine the most honored cherubic multitude!

Rejoice, Thou Who didst rejoice the most glorious seraphic nature!

Rejoice, Thou Who wast prefigured by the patriarchs!

Rejoice, Thou Who was foretold by the prophets!

Rejoice, Thou Who didst swiftly avenge the evil boldness of the Jew!

Rejoice, Thou Who didst grant healing to the same!

Rejoice, Thou Who didst turn the unbelief of Aphthonius into belief!

Rejoice, Thou Who didst receive his faithful confession!

Rejoice, Thou Who didst elevate to Heaven those who have love and faith in Thee!

Rejoice, Thou Who savest those who call upon Thy name with faith!

Rejoice, O Joyful One, Who in Thy Dormition hast not forsaken us!

Kontakion 5

The divinely-moving stars, the holy Apostles, scattered across the earth for the sake of the Gospel, were translated upon clouds across the breadth of the air to the burial of the Mother of the Lord, whom they escorted with chants and hymns, crying out together with the immaterial beings: Alleluia!

Ekos 5

The God-seers, having beheld their Master receiving into His hands the soul of His Mother, and knowing Him to be the Lord, hastened to sing unto Her blessed hymns of sacred psalmody:

Rejoice, O Queen, Who didst carry Him Who reigneth over all!

Rejoice, Thou Who wast thyself borne upon His filial hands!

Rejoice, O royal scepter in the right hand of Christ!

Rejoice, O branch of the dove in the hands of Noah!

Rejoice, O rod of Aaron, sprouting forth incorruption!

Rejoice, O unfading lily, flowering with immortality!

Rejoice, O God-inspired flute of David the ancestor of God!

Rejoice, O rising glory of his prophecy, psaltery and harp most beautiful!

Rejoice, O living ark of the holiness of the Lord!

Rejoice, O our life, Who didst rise into the rest of the Lord!

Rejoice, O tabernacle overshadowed by cherubim!

Rejoice, O holy of holies, spoken of by the seraphim!

Rejoice, O Joyful One, Who in Thy Dormition hast not forsaken us!

Kontakion 6

The God-bearing preachers, the Apostles, following the departure unto the world above of the Mother of God, when seated as accustomed at the common meal and lifting up a portion of bread as an offering in the name of the Lord, suddenly beheld the Theotokos and Queen come from above with luminous angels; and hearing Her grant them peace from the Son and God, they exclaimed: Alleluia!

Ekos 6

The Sun of Righteousness, Christ God, arose for us from Thy most pure womb, enlightening the world through the will and wise preaching of the Apostles, and He hath glorified Thee. O Mother of God from generation to generation. Wherefore, we also bless Thee, crying out:

Rejoice, Thou Who art ever-blessed from all generations unto the ages!

Rejoice, Thou Who art compassionate and merciful unto mankind!

Rejoice, Thou Who didst fulfill the promise made unto the choir of disciples!

Rejoice, Thou Who by the visitation from Thy Son and God didst grant unto them peace!

Rejoice, O all-desirable and sweet vision of the saints!

Rejoice, O all-glad rejoicing of venerable mothers and holy virgins!

Rejoice, O Thou Who didst purpose the paradisiacal dwelling of the righteous!

Rejoice, Thou Who visited all those that are in heavenly glory!

Rejoice, O beginning of man's salvation!

Rejoice, O fulfillment of all good desires!

Rejoice, O Theotokos and Queen, Who reignest after God the King!

Rejoice, O Lady and Sovereign, Who ruleset after the Lord our Master!

Rejoice, O Joyful One, Who in Thy Dormition hast not forsaken us!

Kontakion 7

All those who come in faith into Thy holy temple, O Theotokos, Thou ever savest, and those who glorify Thee does Thou deliver from every assault and danger; wherefore do Thou grant to Orthodox people, whoever bless Thee, victory over adversaries and every request unto salvation do Thou grant unto us who pray unto Thee, and sing unto God: Alleluia!

Ekos 7

A new creation was manifest unto us by the Lord and Creator of all, through Thee, O Theotokos; and looking with favor on us who honorably revere Thy most-honorable Dormition, do Thou receive such praises as these from those that cry out to Thee:

Rejoice, Mother of God chosen from among the earthly!

Rejoice, Thou who art higher than the earthly and the heavenly creation!

Rejoice, Thou Who didst ascend higher than the cherubim and the seraphim!

Rejoice, Thou Who didst gather the choir of disciples on clouds for Thy burial!

Rejoice, Thou Who didst bring Thomas by the power of God after Thy burial!

Rejoice, Thou Who didst convince all through him of Thy translation into Heaven bodily!

Rejoice, Thou Who art adorned with the beauty of all the virtues!

Rejoice, Thou Who wast united to Thy Son, more beautiful than all the sons of men!

Rejoice, Thou Who didst flourish like the palm tree by rising in the flesh!

Rejoice, Thou Who has multiplied like the cedars in the celestial Lebanon!

Rejoice, O tree of life, planted in the midst of the Paradise above!

Rejoice, O noetic ark, raised on the mountains above the flood of mortality!

Rejoice, O Joyful One, Who in Thy Dormition hast not forsaken us!

Kontakion 8

Thou art known in the highest place, O Chosen Lady, like the sun in most heavenly, inconceivable beauty and in ineffable goodness, since Thou didst go up to Thy Son and God, held mercifully in His arms; wherefore bowing down most joyfully before His life-giving right hand, we unceasingly cry out: Alleluia!

Ekos 8

Having been translated into Heaven on high and yet not abandoning those on earth, O Mother of God, Thou wast borne upon the hands of Thy Son and didst enter into the inaccessible regions, into that city, the all-radiant and most beautiful Jerusalem on high, surrounded by the cherubim with all the heavenly hosts whom Thou hearest singing:

Rejoice, Thou whose most holy soul dwelleth in the all-radiant Sion on high!

Rejoice, Thou whose incorruptible body is glorified there together with the soul!

Rejoice, Thou Who dist enter into the Royal City of the very Ruler of all!

Rejoice, Thou Who wast raised unto the most beautiful Paradise of the Husbandman on high!

Rejoice, Thou Who wast bourne into the city founded on stones all-brilliant!

Rejoice, Thou Who wast led through the embattlements of the surrounding heavenly hosts!

Rejoice, Thou wast taken into the highest heaven and the majesty of God!

Rejoice, Thou Who art honored beyond all the immaterial minds!

Rejoice, Thou Who dost offer the supplications of the faithful to Thy Son and God!

Rejoice, Thou Who dost continually intercede for all before the throne of Thy Son and God!

Rejoice, O mediatress before God Who savest the world!

Rejoice, O intercessor given by God for the Christian race!

Rejoice, O Joyful One, Who in Thy Dormition hast not forsaken us!

Kontakion 9

All angelic nature exalteth Thee, O Theotokos, and the whole human race glorifieth Thee as Mother of God, and we glorify Thy most honorable Dormition, O Queen, since for Thy sake the earthly are gathered together with the heavenly, harmoniously chanting to God: Alleluia!

Ekos 9

The eloquence of God-proclaimed prophetic sayings we now see coming to pass in Thee, O Theotokos, for truly God in the flesh hast Thou bourne for us. Wherefore, believing in the mystery of the oracles of God, we cry out:

Rejoice, Thou perfect fountainhead of the law and prophets!

Rejoice, O star of Jacob prophesied by Balaam!

Rejoice, O couch of the great King, spoken of by Solomon!

Rejoice, O fleece bedewed of Joshua, symbolized by Gideon!

Rejoice, O bush unburnt, foreseen by the law-giver!

Rejoice, O holy mountain, discerned by the man of desire!

Rejoice, O heavenly ladder foreseen by Jacob! Rejoice, O door impassable, foreseen by Ezekiel!

Rejoice, O sun, tabernacle of Christ, foreshown by the psalmist!

Rejoice, O complex mystery, foretold by the prophets!

Rejoice, Thou Who didst bring to fulfillment all the prophetic words forespoken of Thee!

Rejoice, Thou Who didst bring to perfection the economy of the Most High for the salvation of the world!

Rejoice, O Joyful One, Who in Thy Dormition hast not forsaken us!

Kontakion 10

Desiring to save the world, the Lord of all chose Thee out of the earthly race to be His Mother, and for our sake became man; He ascended from earth to Heaven, from whence He came, and took Thee with him to abide in eternal glory and to reign with Him without end. Wherefore as God He heareth from all: Alleluia!

Ekos 10

A bulwark art Thou for the faithful, O Theotokos Virgin, and intercession for all who flee to Thee; for the Creator of Heaven and earth took flesh of Thee, O Most-pure One, and brought Thee in spirit and body to the heavens in the closest mediation for all who have been taught to proclaim:

Rejoice, O city of the great King above the heavenly heights!

Rejoice, O wall and shelter Who dost not hide from our approach!

Rejoice, Thou Who givest aid to faithful kings against their enemies!

Rejoice, Thou Who gainest victory over the invasions of the Hagarenes!

Rejoice, O immovable preservation of the faith of the pious!

Rejoice, O ruination of the regiments of the heretics!

Rejoice, joy and reconciliation of the world!

Rejoice, Thou Who didst trample upon the all-destructive hades!

Rejoice, O special coronation of those warring by chastity against the flesh!

Rejoice, all-honorable glorification of martyric ascetic struggles!

Rejoice, O intercessor of monks for a blessed repose from their monastic labors!

Rejoice, O giver of eternal rejoicing to monks in blessed affliction!

Rejoice, O Joyful One, Who in Thy Dormition hast not forsaken us!

Kontakion 11

Our singing of every God-inspired hymn sufficeth not for the praise of Thine all-honorable Dormition, O all-praised Lady and Queen, the Theotokos; but ardently we offer Thee as the Mother of the King of all, our humble supplication, singing with the heavenly ranks to God, Who alone worthily glorifieth Thee: Alleluia!

Ekos 11

A light-receiving candle of the true Light does Thou appear to us on earth, enlightening souls and guiding unto divine understanding those who revere Thine all-honorable repose, that we may sing to Thee:

Rejoice, O torch of the inextinguishable material Fire!

Rejoice, O unfading glow of the unsetting Light!

Rejoice, O moon, gleaming from the Sun of Righteousness!

Rejoice, O light Who shinest in the darkness!

Rejoice, O lamp, placed upon the highest of candlesticks!

Rejoice, O source of Life, led from the tomb into the Light!

Rejoice, O Mother of the noetic Light, Who enlightenest the souls of the pious!

Rejoice, O Mother of the God of all, Who comfortest tormented souls!

Rejoice, Thou Who grantest an end without shame to the lives of those who hope in Thee!

Rejoice, Thou Who at the right hand of Thy Son at the Last Judgement preparest a Divine inheritance for His servants!

Rejoice, most blessed one, for we are blessed to have Thee as a helper!

Rejoice, Thou Who art most blessed from generation to generation, for the Lord is with Thee, and through Thee, with us!

Rejoice, O Joyful One, Who in Thy Dormition hast not forsaken us!

Kontakion 12

The intelligences on high see the Grace of the Heavenly Throne granted unto the Mother of God, Who is honored by Her place at the right hand of Her Son and God; wherefore the Thrones and Powers upraise Her, the Principalities and Authorities surround Her, the terrible Cherubim, Seraphim and Dominions bow down, and with the Archangels and Angels they sing: Alleluia!

Ekos 12

Hymning Thine all-venerable Dormition, we all extol Thine ascent to the most heavenly regions, O Queen and Mother of God; do thou sanctify, glorify, and save all who with love sing unto Thee:

Rejoice, Thou Who didst purify the earth with the footsteps of Thy most pure feet!

Rejoice, Thou Who didst sanctify the air with Thine ascent into the heavens!

Rejoice, Thou Who didst enter the heavenly sphere!

Rejoice, Thou Who didst behold all ineffable goodness!

Rejoice, Thou Who in glory didst sit upon the throne of Thy Son and God!

Rejoice, Thou Who reignest eternally with Thy Son and God!

Rejoice, O beauty at the right hand of the Lord, Who dost adorn all the heavenly dwellers who bless Thee!

Rejoice, Thou Who dost gladden all those on earth who hope in Thee!

Rejoice, Thou Who art clothed in the Sun, Who dost irradiate Grace and glory upon all the world!

Rejoice, Thou Who promisest to preserve and save all who call upon Thee beneath the heavens!

Rejoice, Thou Who art revered as the Mother of God by all Christian generations and art called the Theotokos!

Rejoice, Thou Who from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof art glorified most gloriously and in Orthodox manner by all the pious!

Rejoice, O Joyful One, Who in Thy Dormition hast not forsaken us!

Kontakion 13

O all-hymned Mother of the immortal King of Heaven and earth, Christ our God, living even after death, accept from us the present offering for Thine all-honored Dormition, and in this life and in our mortal repose, deliver us from every assault, danger, and torment, and vouchsafe us the heavenly Kingdom, O Queen, who cry unto Thee: Alleluia! Thrice.

And again Ekos 1 and Kontakion 1.

Prayer to the Most Holy Theotokos

O Most Holy Theotokos, Virgin, Lady, Who art higher than the Angels and Archangels, and more honored than all creation, the great wonder of angels, the lofty sermon of prophets, the most glorious boast of apostles, the special saving adornment of hierarchs, the strong support of martyrs, the saving precept of monastics, the inexhaustible abstinence of fasters, the purity and glory of those in virginity, the peaceful gladness of mothers, the wisdom and learning of children, nourisher of widows and orphans, garment of the naked, health of the ailing, deliverance of the imprisoned, calm of those that sail upon the sea, stormless haven of the tempest-tossed, untiring instructress for the erring, easy passage of the travelling, good repose of laborers, quick defender of those in trouble, shelter and refuge of the wronged, hope of the despairing, helper of the needy, inexhaustible wealth of the poor, everlasting comforter of the grieving, loving humility of the hated, salvation of sinners and re-acquisition to God, firm stronghold of the right-believing, unconquerable help and intercession: through Thee, O Lady, the Invisible became visible and unto Thee, O Lady, we Thy sinful servants offer petition:

O most merciful and most wonderful Queen of noetic light, Who gave birth to Christ the King, our God and Giver of Life unto all, Who art glorified by the celestial, and praised by the earthly: the mind of angels, luminous star, most holy one of the saints, queen of queens, mistress of all creation, divinely-majestic virgin, spotless bride, palace of the Most Holy Spirit, fiery throne of the invisible King, heavenly ark, vessel of God the Word, fire-like chariot, resting-place of the living God, ineffable source of the flesh of Christ, nest of the heavenly Eagle, divinely speaking turtle-dove, meek dove, gentle and kind, child-loving mother, abyss of mercies, disperser of the cloud of the wrath of God, immeasurable depth, inexpressible mystery, incomprehensible miracle, church not-made-with-hands of the only King of all ages, fragrant censer, honorable robe of purple, divinely-woven porphyry, animate paradise, branch from the life-bearing garden, most beautiful flower that hath blossomed heavenly gladness for us, cluster of our salvation, chalice of the King of Heaven, in which is poured from the Holy Spirit the wine of inexhaustible Grace, intercessor of the Law, inception of the true Faith of Christ, unshakeable pillar, destruction of heretics, sword of the divine wrath against those inimical to God, intimidation of demons, victory of those in warfare, true preserver of all Christians, and known salvation of all the world.

O all-merciful Sovereign, Virgin, Lady, Theotokos, hearken unto us who pray unto Thee and manifest Thy mercy upon Thy people, pray unto Thy Son to deliver us from all evil and preserve our monastery (or city), and every monastery, and city, and country of the faithful and of the reverent people who flee to Thee and call upon Thy holy name, from every assault, destruction, famine, earthquake, flood, fire, and sword, invasions of enemies and civil war, from every illness, and difficulty; let not wounds, nor privation, nor plague, nor any righteous wrath of God humiliate Thy servants; but keep and save us by Thy mercy, O Sovereign Lady, and by Thy prayers grant unto us healthful, seasonable weather at the time of fruitful harvest; relieve, restore, and have mercy, O most merciful Lady, most praised Theotokos, upon those in every trouble and need.

Remember Thy servants and do not disdain our tears and sighs, and renew us with the goodness of Thy mercy that we who find in Thee a helper may be gratefully comforted.

Be compassionate, O Lady most pure, our hope, towards Thine infirm people: gather the dispersed, set upon the right path those who have strayed and bring back those who have fallen away from the pious faith of our fathers, support the aged, admonish the young, nurture the children, glorify them that glorify Thee, and especially keep the Church of Thy Son and preserve it unto length of days.

O merciful and most-merciful Queen of Heaven and earth, ever-virgin Theotokos, through Thine intercessions have mercy upon Orthodox Christians, preserving them under the protection of Thy mercy, defending them with Thy precious mantle, and pray unto Him Who was incarnate of Thee, Christ our God, that He gird us with power from above against all our enemies visible and invisible, against the foreign and domestic forces fighting against us and our Orthodox Faith.

Save and have mercy, O Lady upon our most reverend Orthodox metropolitans, archbishops, and bishops, priests and deacons, and all the Clerical orders of the Church and all right-believing people who reverence and pray before Thy precious icon.

Look down upon us all with the gaze of Thy merciful intercession; raise us up from the depths of sin and enlighten the eyes of our hearts unto the vision of salvation, be merciful unto us here and plead for us at the terrible Judgement of Thy Son, when Thy servants have departed this life in piety into eternal life, and number them with the angels and archangels and all the saints, that they may stand at the right hand of Thy Son and God: and through Thy prayers vouchsafe all Orthodox Christians to live with Christ and to enjoy the gladness of the angels in the heavenly mansions.

For Thou, O Lady, art the glory of the heavenly and hope of the earthly; Thou art the hope and protection of all who flee unto Thee and ask Thy holy help; Thou art our fervent pleader to Thy Son and our God: for Thy maternal prayers are powerful to entreat the Master, and through Thine intercession we dare to approach, even though we are unworthy, the throne of the Grace of His most holy and life-creating Mysteries.

Wherefore, beholding Thine all-honorable icon and seeing the God Who holds all things held in Thy hands, we sinners rejoice, falling down in contrition, and we kiss it with love, expecting, O Lady, through Thy prayers which are pleasing to God, to enter into everlasting, heavenly life and to stand without shame on the Day of Judgement at the right hand of Thy Son and our God, glorifying Him together with His Unoriginate Father, and the Most Holy, Good, Life-creating and Consubstantial Spirit unto the ages of ages. Amen.

 

Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Attica: On the Feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos

August 27, 2026

 

 

Beloved brethren in Christ,

Great indeed and wondrous is the miracle unfolding today before our eyes: our sweet Panagia, our great Mother, whose name comes spontaneously to our lips whenever our heart seeks help, pays the common debt of mankind. In simpler words, she dies.

The God-proclaiming Apostles, gathered together from the ends of the inhabited world, sorrowfully conduct her funeral and reverently lay her venerable and holy body in the tomb. Yet once again comes the wondrous reversal, for it is impossible that the Mother of Life should be held in the tomb.

Christ the Giver of Life, her Son and God, accompanied by a multitude of angelic hosts, receives her entire—both soul and body—into His Heavenly Kingdom, leaving the tomb empty, yet filled with grace by the temporary presence of the Most Holy Theotokos.

Awestruck before the mystery of the Translation of the All-Immaculate Maiden, the two divinely inspired poets and saints of our Church, John of Damascus and Cosmas of the Holy City, proclaim—the former:

“O wonders surpassing understanding, wrought through the Ever-Virgin and Mother of God! For, having dwelt in the tomb, she revealed it to be Paradise.”

And the latter:

“The bounds of nature are overcome in thee, O immaculate Virgin; for childbirth remains virginal, and death is betrothed to life.”

Today’s world-rejoicing feast triumphantly confirms that, for those who have pleased God and have struggled to please Him, death is a dormition—a sweet sleep, a gateway to eternal life. The time will someday come when the grave will become our bed of repose. Yet the time will also come when we shall once again leave it empty, to live in soul and body in the light of the Resurrection.

As human beings, we are afraid when we contemplate death. We weep and lament over separation. Our soul is shaken when we accompany someone dear to us to the grave. All these things are natural and human. Yet let us consider today’s feast: for what appears to be a death, the entire Christian world dons its festive garments, the bells ring out joyfully, and even the streets and the air have something festal about them. What, truly, are we celebrating?

We celebrate God’s victory over death, which is revealed through the Theotokos to the entire human race. We celebrate the transformation of death from a dark and icy end into a restful dormition and a betrothal to eternal life. We celebrate the assurance of an all-powerful intercession before God, for although our Panagia departed from the earth, she never left the world orphaned.

In a phrase deeply rooted in the consciousness of our people, we celebrate the “Pascha of the Summer,” during which the Ever-Virgin Mary teaches us throughout the ages: “Let no one fear death, for the death of the Savior has set us free.” Let no one fear death any longer. And if death is man’s greatest fear, let no one fear anything at all, for the God Who conquered death will also conquer anything else that threatens us—on one condition: that we fulfill the command of the Lady Theotokos, as we read in the Gospel account of the wedding at Cana: “Whatever He—my Son—says to you, do it.”

And if, along the way, we sometimes stray from this commandment because of our weaknesses, and if we once again become immersed in concern over the problems of daily life, let us not forget that our great Mother always stands beside her Son, conveying our petitions to Him and persuading Him to grant them through the maternal boldness she possesses. Let us then kneel before her icon and speak to her. We are her children, and she will hear us, provided that our prayer comes from the heart and that this heart has been softened by love and forgiveness.

And how do we know that she will hear us? Her countless icons, the innumerable churches and monasteries built in her honor, and her myriad names all bear witness to this.

Many blessed years to all!

May our Panagia be our help!

Your Bishop,

† Chrysostomos of Attica and Boeotia

 

 

Greek source:

https://www.imab.gr/index.php/latest-news/3613-menyma-tou-sebasmiotatou-metropolitou-attikes-kai-boiotias-k-chrysostomou-gia-ten-heorte-tes-koimeseos-tes-theotokou-2026

Metropolitan Klemes: Encyclical on the Dormition and Translation of the Most Holy Theotokos


 

Beloved Fathers and Brethren,

Our Lady the Theotokos, for as long as she lived in this life after holy Pentecost and before her blessed Dormition, led—as she had before—a heavenly life equal to that of the angels. She sought solitude, silence, stillness, delight in the divine wonders, in the divine Economy of her Son and God, in the heavenly Mysteries, and in the heavenly Glory of eternity.

Of course, she did not neglect participation in divine worship, being the Center of the Church. Her blessed life was characterized by poverty and worldly deprivation, continual fasting, simplicity and obscurity, and above all by prayer: continual, ceaseless, perpetual, unremitting, fiery, full of power, effectual, unerring, prevailing with God, surpassingly wondrous, surpassingly wise, and surpassingly radiant; hesychastic prayer, silent, all-abundant, befitting the Mother of God; prayer of thanksgiving, doxology, supplication, and the heart, of immeasurable depth and unsearchable height; it shook both heaven and earth and, of course, was always heard.

Truly, we who are humble and unworthy cannot enter into this divine mystery of her unique prayer: the manner in which she glorified the Holy Trinity; her indescribable maternal converse with her Son and God, the Lord Jesus Christ; and the prayerful sweetness and fragrance, filled with the Holy Spirit, of her immaculate soul and all-holy body. We are left in awe, unable to approach the “secret and hidden things” of her existence!

Our Lady the Theotokos was wholly a surpassingly radiant Pillar of Prayer, she who constitutes the “Boundary” between the Creator and creation, between God and man.

It is certain that she supplicated, as befitted the Mother of God, for the peace of the world, for the stability of the Churches, for the Holy Apostles—her beloved children—and for all the faithful: that Christians might have peace, love, concord, repentance, and unity of spirit; that those dedicated to God might possess spiritual zeal and self-sacrifice; that affection and understanding might prevail within families, and that the poison of discord and strife, quarrelsomeness and envy, might not enter therein.

She prayed for the fruitfulness of the earth, for an abundance of good things, and for the well-being of the entire world, so that people might live in faith, righteousness, and advancement. She prayed for children, for the young, for those of middle age, and for the elderly, that all might remain under divine grace and protection, be pleasing to God, not succumb to the temptations of sin, and attain eternal salvation.

And when the Mother of God received the good tidings of her Dormition, she blessed the Holy Apostles, who had been miraculously gathered together, and comforted the faithful with words of maternal kindness and compassion. She prayed that love, respect, patience, steadfastness, and above all Orthodoxy of faith and holiness of life might prevail among all.

Then, peaceful, calm, and composed, without the slightest anguish or pain, she surrendered her all-holy soul into the hands of her Son and God, Who received it reverently, accompanied by countless Holy Angels censing and chanting hymns of victory pleasing to God, and raised her to the very Throne of the Godhead as the glorified Queen of All!

Her God-bearing body was reverently buried by the Holy Apostles in Gethsemane, in accordance with her desire. Subsequently, however, her Tomb was found empty, because she ascended bodily into the Heavens—that is, she was translated and transferred, and was clothed in incorruption before the common and general resurrection—she who gave birth to Christ our God!

This is the greatest and most solemn Feast of the Mother of God celebrated by the Church—the “Pascha of the summer,” the triumph of life and holiness!

* * *

Beloved Brethren,

After her all-venerable Dormition and Translation, the All-Immaculate Mary continues unceasingly in the Heavens her holy prayer as the Mother of God, especially for all her children, the devout Orthodox Christians, who are particularly pleasing to her through their consistent Christian lives, their spiritual struggle, and their faith, repentance, self-restraint, and virtue.

May we, too, be characterized by ardent faith and persistent, tireless prayer of repentance, so that we may avoid the error prevailing around us and, through the intercessions of the Mother of God, be preserved in the confession of the Truth with patience unto the end.

May we be numbered among the true children of our Most Holy Lady and receive her abundant and continual maternal beneficence, both in this present life and in the life to come. Amen!

With paternal prayers and blessings,

+ Metropolitan Klemes of Larissa and Platamon

Larissa, August 15, 2026               

 

Greek source:

https://imlp.gr/2026/08/26/%e1%bc%90%ce%b3%ce%ba%cf%8d%ce%ba%ce%bb%ce%b9%ce%bf%cf%82-%ce%b3%ce%b9%e1%bd%b0-%cf%84%e1%bd%b4%ce%bd-%ce%ba%ce%bf%ce%af%ce%bc%ce%b7%cf%83%ce%b7-%ce%ba%ce%b1%e1%bd%b6-%ce%bc%ce%b5%cf%84%ce%ac%cf%83/

Wednesday, August 26, 2026

The Synaxarion: The Dormition of the Theotokos


 

On the 15th of the month [of August], we celebrate the DORMITION, or the TRANSLATION to HEAVEN, of our All-Glorious Sovereign Lady, the MOTHER of GOD and EVER-VIRGIN MARY [1]

When it pleased Christ our God to call His mother to Him, He sent an angel [2] three days beforehand, to give her this news. Coming to her, the angel said to her who is full of grace: ‘This is what your Son says: “The time has come to call My mother to Me.” Do not be afraid at this news, but rather rejoice, for you are going to eternal life.’ Welcoming this message with great joy, the Mother of God, filled with an ardent desire to rise up to her Son, went to the Mount of Olives to pray there in tranquillity, as she often did. An amazing miracle was then wrought: at the moment when the All-Holy reached the top of the hill, the trees planted there bent their branches, bowing down and glorifying the Queen of the world like reason-endowed servants.

After having prayed, the All-Holy returned home to Mount Zion. [3] When she went into the house, it suddenly began to shake. Giving thanks to God, she had the house-lamps lit and called together her kinsfolk and friends. She herself set everything in order, prepared her deathbed and gave orders that all be made ready for her funeral. To the women who came at her summons, she revealed the news of her departure to heaven and, as proof, gave them the palm branch, the symbol of victory and incorruptibility, that the angel had given her. Still held by the bonds of the world, her companions heard this news with copious tears and groans, begging the Mother of God not to leave them orphaned. She reassured them, saying that she was indeed going to heaven but would nonetheless continue to protect both them and the whole world by her prayers. At these words, the women stopped their weeping and hastened to make the preparations. The All-Holy also told them to give the only two robes that she possessed to two poor widows who were her constant companions and friends. [4]

She had scarcely spoken these words when the house was shaken once again by a noise like thunder, and it was filled with clouds bearing the Apostles, assembled from the furthest parts of the world. It was thus that the whole Church, in their persons, was mystically present to celebrate the funeral of its sovereign Lady. To the choir of the Apostles was joined that of the Hierarchs such as Saint Hierotheos (4 Oct.), Saint Dionysios the Areopagite (3 Oct.) and Saint Timothy (22 Jan.). [5] Their eyes full of tears, they said to the Mother of God: ‘If you were to stay in the world and live among us, we would, of course, have great consolation, O Lady, as it would be as though we saw your Son and our Master. But as it is now according to His will that you are taken to heaven, we are weeping and lamenting as you see. But we rejoice at all that has been arranged for you.’ She replied: ‘O you disciples and friends of my Son and my God, do not turn my joy to sorrow but bury my body and keep it in the position that I shall take on my deathbed.’

At these words, Saint Paul, the chosen vessel, arrived in his turn. He threw himself at the feet of the All-Holy to venerate her, and addressed this praise to her: ‘Rejoice, O Mother of Life and object of my preaching, for although I never saw Christ in the flesh, it is Him, in seeing you, that I believe I behold.’

After having made her last farewells to all those present, the All-Immaculate laid herself down on her deathbed, settling her body as she wished it, and offered ardent prayer to her Son for the preservation of peace in the whole world. Then, having given her blessing to the Apostles and hierarchs, she, with a smile, peacefully gave her soul, white and more resplendent than any light, into the hands of her Son and her God, who had appeared together with the Archangel Michael and a host of angels. Her death came about with no suffering or anguish, as her childbearing had been without pain.

Peter, the leader of the Apostles, then intoned the funeral hymn and his companions took up the bier, preceded by others present who carried torches and accompanied the cortège with their chanting. Saint John the Theologian was at their head, holding the palm of victory in his hand and followed in silence by the crowd of disciples. Angels could also be heard, joining their voices to those of men, so that heaven and earth were entirely filled with this threnody in honour of the sovereign Lady of the world. The air was purified by the ascending of her soul, the earth was sanctified by the burial of her body, and many of the sick recovered their health. Not being able to bear this sight, the leaders of the Jews aroused the people and sent them to overturn the bier bearing the life-giving body. But divine justice forestalled their dark design, and they were all struck with blindness. One of them, the priest Jephoniah, who, with greater daring, had succeeded in laying hands on the holy bier, also had his hands cut off at the elbow by the sword of divine wrath, and his severed arms hung on the bier, presenting a pitiable sight. Brought to repentance by the punishment, Jephoniah wholeheartedly embraced the Faith; and, at a word from Peter, he was healed and became for his companions an instrument of salvation and healing. When he was given a branch of the Mother of God’s palm, he laid it on the eyes of his companions and healed, at one and the same time, their physical and spiritual blindness.

Arriving in the Garden of Gethsemane, the Apostles buried the most holy body of the Mother of God and remained there for three days, their prayers unceasingly being accompanied by angelic hymns. [6] In conformity with a disposition of divine Providence, one of the Apostles (Thomas, according to some), was not at the funeral. He only reached Gethsemane on the third day, and was inconsolable at not having a last sight of the deified body of the All-Holy. The Apostles therefore, with one accord, decided to open the tomb in order to let him venerate the holy body. When they raised the stone that closed the entrance, they were all filled with amazement on finding that the body had disappeared and that only the shroud remained, empty and keeping the shape of the body. It was an irrefutable proof of the translation to heaven of the Mother of God: her resurrection and the ascension of her body, united again with her soul, above the skies in the close company of her Son, to be our representative and advocate before God. [7]

Mary, ‘daughter of Adam’ but having become truly ‘Mother of God’ and ‘Mother of Life’ in giving birth to Him who is the Fullness of Life (cf. Jn 14:6) thus passed through death. But her death was no dishonour, for, overcome by Christ, who submitted to it by His own will for our salvation, the condemnation of Adam became a ‘life-giving death’ and the principle of a new existence. And the tomb of Gethsemane, as well as the Holy Sepulchre, appeared as a ‘nuptial chamber’ where the wedding feast of incorruptibility is solemnised.

It was fitting, indeed, that, conforming in all things to Christ our Saviour, the most holy Virgin should follow all the paths trodden by Christ to spread sanctification throughout our nature. After having followed Him in His Passion and having ‘seen’ His Resurrection, she now had the experience of death. As soon as she was parted from the body, her most pure soul found itself united with divine Light; and her body, having lain a short time in the earth, was soon raised by the grace of the risen Christ. This ‘Spiritual Body’ was received into heaven as the tabernacle of God-become-Man, as the throne of God. It is the most significant part of the Body of Christ, and had often been likened by the holy Fathers as the Church itself, the dwelling-place of God among men, the first-fruits of our future state and the source of our divinisation. Through the womb of Mary most chaste, the Mother of God, the Kingdom of heaven has been opened to us, and this is why her translation to heaven is a cause of joy for all believers, having thus acquired a guarantee that, in her person, it is the whole of human nature, having become a Christ-bearer, that is called to abide in God.

 

NOTES

1. As is the case on the other feasts in the cycle of the Mother of God, the liturgical and iconographic tradition has largely been taken from the apocryphal writings: (the Pseudo John the Theologian and the Pseudo Meliton), correcting their doctrinal errors. Celebrated at first in the month of January in Jerusalem, this feast was fixed on 15 August and made obligatory in the whole of the East by Emperor Maurice (582-602). The practice spread widely, thanks to the eulogies given by the holy fathers and great Church orators on this feast: SS Andrew of Crete, John Damascene, Germanus of Constantinople, Theodore the Studite, Gregory Palamas, etc.

2. Some say this was the Archangel Gabriel, as at the Annunciation. It is thought that this took place about eleven years after the Resurrection, when the Mother of God was fifty-nine years old.

3. According to many writers, she lived in the house of St John the Theologian on Sion.

4. Cf. the account of the Deposition of the Robe of the Mother of God on 2 July.

5. A detail recorded in the works attributed to St Dionysius the Areopagite: Divine Names 3, 2 (PG 3, 681-4).

6. It is said that, on returning from the funeral, the Apostles gathered for a fraternal meal, and in Christ’s place, they put a triangle of bread. At the moment of elevating it while invoking the Name of Christ, as was their custom, they heard from highest heaven the All-Holy saying: ‘Rejoice, for I am with you to the end of the ages!’ In the greatest joy, the Apostles cried out with one voice: ‘Most holy Mother of God, come to our aid!’ This is the origin of the Office of the Elevation of the Panaghia, celebrated in monasteries at the end of meals on feast days (cf. Great Horologion).

7. According to the Apocryphon of Pseudo-John, the body of the holy Virgin was first of all taken to Paradise, beside the Tree of Life, and it was there that the Archangel Michael went to reunite her soul and body. The holy Fathers were, however, not willing to dogmatise on this question, which remains a subject of devotion in the Church and not a theological definition. They preferred to contemplate, in this mystery of the ‘translation’ (metástasis) to heaven of the Mother of God, the fulfilment of the Redeemer’s work in the ‘co-resurrection’ and ‘co-glorification’ of the holy Virgin, reserving the title of ‘resurrection’ (anástasis) for that of the Saviour. The term ‘Assumption’, that was recently adopted as dogma by the Roman Catholic Church (1950), as a corollary to the Immaculate Conception (1854), leaves the ambiguous question that the Mother of God, having been free of the heritage of Adam (original sin and its consequence, death), did not die but was taken, body and soul, to heaven.

 

Source: The Synaxarion: The Lives of the Saints of the Orthodox Church, Vol. 6 (July, August), Hieromonk Makarios of Simonos Petra, Mt. Athos, Holy Convent of the Annunciation of Our Lady, Ormylia (Chalkidike), 2008, pp. 482-487.

 

 

Orthodoxy and the Western Rite: The Question of Necessity

Jack Turner, Ph.D.

Source: The Canadian Journal of Orthodox Christianity, Volume V, No. 3, Fall 2010, pp. 107-125. Typos corrected.

 

 

Necessity is the mother of invention, or so the saying goes. Directly stated, one’s creativity is pressed into service out of serious need or duress, and in moments of struggle one can be eminently imaginative in devising a solution the present quandary. More abstractly the old maxim could be understood as meaning one does not invent something new unless one has a want. In discussions on the validity of Western Rite Orthodoxy, it is commonly asked whether the Orthodox Church needs a Western rite, for any number of purposes, including effective evangelization of non-Orthodox Christians, demonstration of Orthodoxy’s catholicity, and demonstration of a living Western memory, among other possibilities. [1] In other words, is the Western rite necessary? If did not exist, would we wind up inventing it?

The response that Orthodoxy does not need a Western rite is obvious enough at first since it is categorically true: Orthodoxy does not need a Western rite because she simply does not. The problem is not so much in the statement itself, which is indeed so obvious as to be a truism, but in the underlying assumption that are left unspoken, and that is where the deep significance of this objection lies. We can identify at least three unspoken predications to the statement: because the Eastern rite is innately superior to the Western rite in transmitting Orthodoxy; because the West is heretical and therefore the Western rite is automatically heretical; and because the ethos of the West is opposed to Orthodoxy. Each of these rationales have their own underlying assumptions about the nature of Orthodoxy, the West, and the role of culture in the Church. What brings all three elements together under a single heading is that they share a common feature, what Andrew Sopko refers to as “psychological negativism, an unhealthy by-product of the cultural superiority which Byzantium did indeed once possess over the West for many centuries but eventually lost.” [2]

The “otherness” of the Eastern rite to Western Christians has been cited previously as a justification for the existence of a Western rite. [3] The argument posits that, because the Eastern rite represents a culture which is entirely beyond the cultural experience of most Westerners, it is likely to be a barrier to a conversion rather than an aid. In this regard, critics of the Western rite argue that those who prefer a Western rite should be content with an Eastern rite because the nature of the Church itself is Eastern rather than Western.

Chrysostomos Stratman is representative when he states that “[the Orthodox Church’s] Oriental spirit, or Gospel spirit, to use an equivalent expression, is not a development. It was there all the time. It was in the East that the Gospel of truth arose…and it is the same East which has always been the source of its true traditions and spirit.” [4] This itself is little more than a vestigial manifestation of the assumed cultural superiority of Greek culture over and against Latin culture, one which itself not only contributed to the Great Schism, but further served as a barrier to reconciliation between the two sides historically, and this in addition to the very real dogmatic disagreements which are, themselves, the product of two alienated cultures. The claim that Western Christians should be satisfied with the Eastern rite because Christianity is Eastern, because Jesus and his Apostles were Eastern, is itself a confusion of the issue brought about by woolly-headed thinking. In one sense, these critics are correct in that, from the perspective of the Rome at the time of the Early Church, Jesus and his Apostles and his teachings were Eastern because they originated in a cultural milieu of the Eastern portion of the Roman Empire. The same basic truth can be said of the liturgy of the Churches of the Eastern portion of the former Roman Empire.

But there is a problem in assuming that there is any such thing as a monolithic “Eastern” context. Certainly, the Eastern rite is “Eastern,” but to be more precise, it is Greek and to be even more specific, it is Byzantine rather than Attic. Attic Greek culture, the culture of ancient Athens, is the culture of Socrates and Plato which imparts its influence to all of Europe, East and West, including the Byzantine Empire. However, while Byzantine culture absorbs Greco-Attic culture, it is nevertheless distinct from it, for it is a specific synthesis of the Greco-Attic with a reinterpretation of Roman culture and Chalcedonian Christology. This is the cultural context of the Eastern rite, and thus it is properly the Eastern rite, because it is specifically born of the cultural synthesis that took place in Constantinople rather than Athens. By contrast, “the West” is the result of a synthesis of Roman and Germano-Frankish. The Roman culture would consist of the elements found in the Italian peninsula and transmitted in Latin while the Germano-Frankish element is an adaptation of the Roman elements with learning that occurs during the Carolingian renaissance. For those who would contend that Socrates is just as much the cultural inheritance of the West as it is of the East, it is worthwhile to remember that Greek culture was largely lost to the West until the Renaissance, when it was rediscovered and celebrated by humanists in their mistaken belief that this was the true cultural foundation of European civilization.

While it is true that Jesus and his Apostles are Eastern in the same basic sense of Greek civilization, in that it lies east of Rome, that is hardly the most specific description. A more specific description would be that Jesus and his Apostles are Semitic in culture, and to be more precise, are of the Palestinian Jewish variety of Western Semitic culture. There is a distinction between Palestinian Jewishness and Greco-Attic or even Byzantine culture. This distinction is addressed in the fact that there was conflict between Hellenistic Jews (those who had absorbed elements of Greco-Attic culture) and Palestinian Jews, and this is a conflict which is made itself manifest in the very first years of the Church, as the biblical material attests in Acts 3. Thus, the Christian message of the Gospel, which arises in the Palestinian Jewish culture of Jesus and the Twelve (not to mention the majority of the scriptures that constitute the Old Testament), needs to be “translated” into something comprehensible to the prevailing Greek and Latin cultures of the era. This is a process we can see going on even in the time of the Apostle Paul and his attempts to harmonize the Hellenistic and Jewish factions within early Christianity. It seems to be something very obvious, but which has nevertheless been ignored or forgotten. To be direct, fifteen hundred years of dressing Jesus in Greek robes in the sacred art of East and West has made us forget that Jesus was never actually Greek at all.

This assumption that the Orthodox Church and the culture the Gospel arose from are Eastern and therefore the same thing also has enormous implications for the current objection. The underlying premise is that if the Western Orthodox accept the “Eastern” Jesus without complaint or desire to Westernize him, they should therefore be willing to accept the liturgy of the East without any need for a westernization of it, either. But the truth is that neither the West nor the “East” has accepted Jesus or the Gospel without any sort of acculturation, as has been apparent by the imposition of Greek philosophical vocabulary on to the Gospel, a process which no Orthodox Christian would regard as illegitimate. [5] So even the Eastern Church has engaged in its own sort of acculturation and accommodation to the Gospel, which detractors to the Western rite have nevertheless decried as illegitimate for Christianity in the West.

We can sometimes detect an air of superiority regarding the Eastern rite from the Western rite’s most ardent detractors. Sometimes these observations are quite sophisticated and have a distinct theological underpinning, as we see in the case of Alexander Schmemann; more often, they are in reality the sort of gross subjectivism that is typified in Stratman, who finds the character of the Roman rite to be one of

Imperialism, regimentation, coldness of spirit, materialistic efficiency, legalism: these are some of the Roman-Latin traits which distorted Western Christianity into the travesty of a Church which for almost a thousand years has been the most dangerous and insidious enemy of Christ and His Immaculate Bride. Observe the Latin Mass critically and behold the Manifestation of every one of these traits! [6]

But such a criticism of the Western Church is highly subjective and, taken with the balance of Stratman’s thoughts on the subject, may best be described as xenophobic. What is more, most of his criticism about the Roman rite could easily be made of the Eastern rite by individuals approaching the Eastern rite from a different perspective. [7] But Stratman goes on for several more pages denigrating everything Western from a highly subjective standpoint, oblivious to the possibility that the same criticism can be turned back on the Eastern rite in many instances, precisely because of their subjective nature. Such subjective accusations are hardly new, and they have been present within Christianity since at least the seventh century. Stephenson summarizes the attitude of the era as one of questioning “if customs differ, how (they ask) is discipline to be preserved? If they differ obstinately, what is this but schism? How can there be unity of men will not renounce their differences?” [8] Though such attitudes are old, they are hardly helpful.

Schmemann’s critique is certainly more nuanced and is made comprehensible by his methodology of lex orandi, lex credendi: “this criticism itself is rooted primarily in my deep conviction that the Eastern liturgical tradition is alone today in having preserved, in spite of all historical ‘deficiencies,’ the fullness of the Church’s lex orandi.” [9] However, it is precisely that methodology that leads him to a false conclusion, that is, because the West ultimately came into a state of schism and heresy, there must be some defect in the rite because the rite is the source of the heretical theology. Consequently, no other rite aside from the Eastern rite can and perhaps never could adequately convey the fullness of Orthodoxy. And yet, he is not averse to stating in other places that the source of the West’s troubles was its having severed theology from its true source and ultimate arbiter in the form of the liturgy, a process he sees taking place in the Orthodox Church and is quick to decry. [10] The later scenario, obviously, is the case for the history of the West, namely that the liturgy ceased to be a source of theology and ultimately became one of its many subjects. In that regard, we should meet Schmemann’s methodological assumption, that the Church only believes what it prays, and its ensuing critique, with an equally robust criticism: sometimes people believe more than what they pray and sometimes they pray what they don’t believe for appearance’s sake.

However, it must also be remembered that Schememann specifically regards the Eastern rite as having preserved the lex orandi of early Christianity, [11] regarding such elements as the Paschal canon of St John of Damascus as closer to the common Catholic heritage as anything else within the Christian tradition. [12] Furthermore, despite his critique of Western Rite Orthodoxy on the basis of its liturgy, it is clear that Schmemann is arguably more concerned with the people who make up the Western Rite, whether they have sufficiently absorbed an Orthodox ethos or are merely attempting to find a safe shelter beyond their form ecclesiological home where they can continue their previous life, dogmatically and liturgically, without interference. [13] This is certainly a valid pastoral concern, but it is also highly individualistic and, in a certain sense, a subjective judgement. It is a question that needs to be investigated more thoroughly with regards to Western Rite Orthodoxy as it is practiced, but does not, in this author’s opinion, address the Western rite’s legitimacy in abstracto as a legitimate expression of the Orthodox faith, and thus not germane to the present question.

Schmemann’s critique, while established by his methodology, probably would strike a chord with the average Orthodox believer. Stratman’s comment, while at the extreme end of Orthodoxy in America, nevertheless is representative of powerful feelings of antagonism towards the West and things Western. We might expect that it comes from a “less enlightened time,” but if this is so, such enlightenment has only come about very recently. We are thereby left to question if Orthodoxy in the West really gotten over its “psychological negativism” as has been protested by Schmemann and Dye, individually or, as is implied, collectively? Certainly Johnson believes that Orthodoxy has done so through its receptivity towards the saints of the pre-schism and their commemoration within the Eastern rite:

If we can picture Overbeck in 19th century England we might realize why he felt an Orthodoxy using a “western rite” was absolutely essential if the Church was to have a viable mission in the West. Overbeck would have only been able to experience the worship of Orthodoxy as done among recent immigrants, using not English, but the languages of their mother countries. No wonder he might reach the conclusion that only an Orthodoxy with a different rite, that had a western memory, could ever again be the church of the venerable Bede… Orthodoxy doesn't have to have a “western rite” to have a western memory. With this in mind, let us suppose Overbeck's experience of the Church had been quite different. Suppose he had attended the celebration of the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom on the feast of the venerable Bede and there in the narthex was a beautiful icon of this saint for veneration by the faithful. Suppose, too that the Liturgy had been conducted entirely in English. What could he find missing to celebrate the feast of this great saint of the early Christian west? True, the Liturgy would not be served in exactly the same way as Bede himself would have done (but then, neither - by a long shot - would the “western rite” liturgies of St Tikhon or St Gregory be the same as done by the venerable Bede). [14]

Though it would be impossible to gauge the extent of the venation of Western saints within Orthodoxy (and indeed, what precisely could be defined as a “Western” saint in the first place since may individuals are venerated with equal zeal in both calendars, St Nicholas of Myra being perhaps the most significant instance), perhaps an anecdotal and admittedly arbitrary guess can be hazarded. Orthodoxy in North America has seen significant growth in the past century, with the founding of several new congregations. Judging by patronal names alone, and excluding those which could be understood as referencing individuals who could be either Eastern or Western (such as St Gregory, who could be Gregory Dialogus or Gregory the Theologian if no modifier is included) or one of the Apostles, we find that parishes dedicated to Western saints, with the exception of a few Western rite parishes, are almost non-existent. Among the three largest jurisdictions in North America (The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, the Antiochian Archdiocese, and the Orthodox Church in America), there are only five parishes that can be described as having distinctly Western patronal names. There are none in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese and four in the Orthodox Church in America: St Aidan of Lindisfarne Mission, Cranbrook, BC; St Benedict of Nursia, Montreal, QC; St Ambrose of Milan Mission, Roanoke, VA; and St Cyprian of Carthage Mission, Richmond, VA. Within the Antiochian Archdiocese, aside from the Western rite parishes, only one is named for a Western saint: St Vincent of Lerins in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; that leaves five Eastern rite parishes out of nearly 1,000 which bear the name of a distinctively Western saint. [15]

Certainly, such a note is simultaneously idiosyncratic and anecdotal, but it does serve to point out that while the Western rite is not required for a Western memory, without a Western rite there is little in the way of that Western memory. While it can be pointed out that important Western saints such as Patrick of Ireland have begun reappearing on the calendars of Orthodox churches in the West, we are left wanting for any effectual evidence that those saints are even commemorated. The point of parish names goes at least so far as to demonstrate that these Western saints would be commemorated in at least these places if for no other reason than the occasion of a patronal festival. It also leaves untouched the question of how these same saints are received in traditionally Orthodox places, whether Patrick of Ireland makes it into the calendar of, for example, the Church of Georgia or not, without mentioning if he is actually commemorated. [16] The primary fallacy in Johnson’s argument is the assumption that inclusion on the calendar, or even commemoration in the liturgy, is evidence of a “Western memory.” To turn the point on its head, John Chrysostom, Basil the Great, and Gregory of Nazianzos all appear in the Roman calendar though I doubt very seriously that Johnson would thereby admit that the Roman Catholic Church has an “Eastern memory.”

For the Orthodox Church to have something of a Western memory, it would seem logical that the East, without exception would be able to see in the West something familiar and evocative of the memory. While there are instances of this positive reception, most often it is a presumed or idealized conception of the West rather than the West as it actually was in the first millennium. [17] Simultaneously, there are many examples, historically and presently, of those who regard the West as something alien and wholly foreign, not only to the East, but to Christianity in general. The latter is certainly the position that Stratman takes in saying “from the point of view either of justice or logic, their position is no different from that of converted African savages… Logically, the situation is no different than if there never been any Western Rite.” [18] Even more bothersome is his directly claim that “the true Gospel spirit [is] Eastern in the sense that it is anti-Western.” [19] While Stratman’s view is somewhat extreme, the practical result is the same even in more moderated views: Western converts should adopt the Eastern rite because the Eastern rite is Orthodox. This leads to the question of precisely where the categorical rejection of the West came from. Sopko points to “an unhealthy by-product of the cultural superiority which Byzantium did indeed once possess over the West for many centuries but eventually lost.” [20] Certainly, there are replete examples of this presumed cultural superiority by Easterners, most notably Theophylakt of Ochrid, who assumed that all Westerners as uneducated savages and assumed Latin to be an impoverished language incapable of theological expression. [21] And certainly, as we have seen, animosity was present between the two sides for a long period of time.

The categorical rejection of the West and all things Western is therefore not new, but it is hardly a relic of the past. Among Greek theologians, the neo-patristic school, commonly identified with the theologies of John Romanides, Christos Yannaras, and, to a lesser extent, John Zizioulas, makes a determined rejection of the West and all things Western as foreign to Orthodoxy. [22] Romanides is particularly firm in his rejection of the West via his rejection of Augustinian theology, which he views as the origin of scholasticism and consequently of every divergence of the West from the East. [23] And Romanides is not alone in his conclusions, with Yannaras succinctly stating at the outset that “Augustine’s theology was decisive, offering an ideal basis for a differentiated Western Christianity.” [24] While Augustine is not the sole genesis of theology in the West despite conclusions to the contrary by some Orthodox theologians, he is in some way symbolic of that theology, and thus an explicit rejection of Augustine is a rejection of Western Christianity. [25] That Romanides traces the theological separation of East and West to such an early period would mean that the tree is cut from the root long before anything approaching the Western rite (at least in any extant form) could arise.

Certainly, we can disagree with Romanides’ conclusions about Augustine and his role in the creation of Western Christianity, [26] but again to those theologians who oppose “the West” and particularly Western influence in Orthodoxy the symbolism Augustine provides is a tempting target.

It is illuminating that the unequivocal condemnation of Augustine by Orthodox theologians first appears in early nineteenth-century Russia in its Slavophile form and then reappears in the late 1950s among Greek theologians. In both situations, the anti-Augustine sentiment emerges together with a reaction against what is perceived to be western influences that are incompatible with the intellectual and spiritual tradition in Russia and Greece. The move toward a restoration of a more authentic, national, intellectual, and spiritual identity in these Orthodox countries was based on a construction of a particular set of categories, namely “the West” and “the East,” and an understanding of these categories in terms of diametrical opposition. [27]

This brings us back to the question of “psychological negativism” that Sopko identified, which both Schmemann and Johnson deny has any effect on their estimation of the Western rite’s orthodoxy. Johnson’s objection is the more flawed than Schmemann’s, but the conclusion he reaches is more damaging. His conclusion that providing the Eastern rite in modern English and commemorating important Western saints is sufficient demonstration of a Western memory or overcomes Sopko’s psychological negativism is simple, yet it draws an irrelevant conclusion: one may speak English as one’s native language and yet be hostile towards the West and all things Western. Insofar as Romanides and other theologians working within the neo-Patristic synthesis exhibit this negativism, Romanides takes it to an extreme level which “[interprets] the ‘West’ as diametrically opposed to the ‘East,’ both theologically and in terms of its cultural ethos.” [28] Thus, the West is no longer simply something that went astray and could be brought back into conformity with Orthodoxy, but is now to be seen as something which Orthodoxy must rejected as unorthodox, at least from Augustine forward.

Romanides approaches the separation of East and West not as a consequence of a growing separate ecclesial life, but the domination, even genocide, of the “West Romans” by an external force in the Frankish kingdoms. In Romanides’ view, far from there being a “Latin Church” and a “Greek Church,” there was a “Roman Church” composed primarily of the Byzantines and inhabitants Italy and a “Frankish Church” which developed apart from direct continuity with Roman Christianity. [29] However, such a dichotomy ignores the general evidence from history, [30] especially the fact that “so far from wanting to remake the Western Roman Empire in their own image, and so rupturing its links with the East, [The Franks] were only too glad to accept whatever of its patrimony… the Greco-Roman world at large could offer them.” [31] A more accurate assessment might be to see a Greek Christianity in the hellenized centers of the East, a Latin Church exemplified by Rome and the Latin-speaking regions of Italy, and a Frankish Church in Gaul, northern Italy and Germania, drawing from a common theological heritage in the first six ecumenical councils but developing it along distinct lines. The Frankish line comes out of the Latin, but the two are eventually reintegrated in the tenth and eleventh centuries. To put the matter simply, Romanides’ historical theory rests on a base that is ultimately fantasy. However, despite the peculiarity of his historical reconstruction, Romanides’ influence should not be understated, particularly his impact on Orthodox living in the West and even on non-Orthodox scholars. [32]

Considering the origins of the Slavophile movement and its influence on the neo-Patristic school, both with their rejection of all things Western, it is interesting to note a parallel timeline within Western Rite Orthodoxy. Khomiakov began his theological work on sobornost and Slavophilism in the 1830’s and developing coherence in the 1850’s while Overbeck makes his initial approach to the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1864. Both Slavophilia and neo-Patristic thought would lead to Orthodoxy down a road where not only was the West forgotten, it was often rejected outright as something alien to Orthodoxy or, where the West was accepted in whole or part, it was often reinterpreted to the point that Western fathers are devout hellenists who are misunderstood by unworthy successors, especially in Romanides’ skewed vision. So we may confidently conclude that Johnson is mistaken when he states Orthodoxy has a Western memory: English and icons of the Bede do not make a Western memory if they are detached from the historical context and proper perspective.

There is another type of psychological negativism which permeates the Eastern rite, and that is the negativism that comes from converts. In responding to Sopko, Dye finds himself free of the psychological negativism that permeates Eastern Rite Orthodoxy, [33] but there is an existing negativism which comes from being disillusioned with one’s former Church and habits of life which is, in some ways, common of all converts regardless of when or how long ago they converted. Many within the Western Rite Orthodox display this sort of negativism as well, though unlike Dye they do not abjure their former habits of worship. Such hostility is perhaps understandable since many who leave one church in favour of another do so because of some deficiency, real or perceived, in the former group. Sometimes, this hostility can fade but just as frequently it can remain seething beneath the surface until it is released in open attack on former associations; this is especially true when the one leaving the group feels that they are being forced out in some way or have been betrayed by the group itself, either because of changes to demographics, purpose, or beliefs of the group. While not the same as the ethnically based “psychological negativism” that Sopko describes, it can not only be every bit as blinding to the affected individual, it can also be used to feed the assumptions and ideas of those how possess Sopko’s negativism. However, despite Dye’s protestations to the contrary, not having been Orthodox all of one’s life does not free one from psychological negativism; rather, it merely makes them susceptible to different varieties of negativism with a pseudo-legitimate air about them on the assumption that converts must have some special insider knowledge. [34]

Ultimately, the best response to the assertion that Orthodoxy does not need a Western rite is not to argue the point of necessity; from the standpoint of the Orthodox, the Church does not need anything that has not already been provided to her and if something was abandoned along the way, it is because it was not necessary. The real question: how is the Orthodox Church supposed to approach Western Christianity, especially if there is an eventual reunion between East and West? While criticisms of Western Rite Orthodoxy are abundant, most that have been put forward are largely superficial, and it is this superficiality that Sopko is attempting to get at, however ineptly; it is also the same lack of depth that Johnson attempts to rebut while simultaneously succumbing to the same. While criticizing the Western rite on a superficial basis, few critics go so far as to offer alternatives to Western Rite Orthodoxy or to take a larger perspective and consider how their unspoken assumptions would affect larger Western groups seeking union with the Orthodox Church; to put it another way, if reunion took place tomorrow between Constantinople and Rome, what liturgy would Roman Catholics use? For his part, Schmemann is certainly correct that there are more significant issues to be raised in regards to Western Rite Orthodoxy, even though he himself does not approach them with the necessary depth in writing on the subject, than to focus on whether or not Orthodoxy needs a Western rite and what that says about Orthodox Christianity. Certainly, some are likely to have such an immediate and uncritical reaction, but those are hardly individuals who are likely to take opportunity to critique the Byzantine tradition to the same degree that Schmemann does in other places. [35]

 

NOTES

1. There are varieties of Western Rite Orthodoxy, but the most common form is found in the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America, which used modified versions of the Tridentine rite or The Anglican Missal (which is itself based on the 1928 US Book of Common Prayer). The most common changes are introducing the epiclesis from the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, removing reference to the Pope or the filioque, and strengthening petitions to the saints and references to the eucharistic sacrifice in liturgies derived from Anglican sources. Western rite parishes and monasteries Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia use similar liturgies to those just described, in addition to reconstructions of the Sarum use. Furthermore, the Orthodox Church of France, formerly part of the Romanian Orthodox Church, used a reconstructed version of the Gallican rite. The present article addresses criticisms laid against all forms of Western Rite Orthodoxy, since many critics of the Western rite do not take into account the supposed antiquity or source of the liturgy use, considering all form of the Western rite to be invalid.

2. Andrew Sopko, ‘Western Rite Orthodoxy: A Case Study and Reappraisal,’ St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly Vol. 24, No. 4, 1980, p. 255.

3. Cf., e.g., John Rossner, ‘Orthodoxy and the Future of Western Christianity’, St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly Vol. 14, No. 3, 1970, pp. 134-5; Winfield S. Mott, ‘Some Perspectives on the Western Rite – I,” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly Vol. 26, No. 2, 1982, pp. 124-5; and Alexy Young “An Introduction,” in Michael Trigg, ed. An Introduction to Western Rite Orthodoxy (Ben Lomond: Conciliar Press, 1993), pp. 5-6.

4. Chrysostomos Stratman, “The Roman Rite in Orthodoxy,” p. 9.

5. This is not to say that the Greek context of early Christianity is irrelevant or unimportant. Greek culture provided a vehicle for interpreting the Hebrew scriptures, and the Christian faith to the non-Jewish world. Furthermore, Christianity has historically claimed that Greek and Latin culture were being divinely prepared to receive the revelation of the Gospel, the philosophical quests coming to their own natural conclusion at precisely the correct time for the audience to be receptive. In that sense, one can agree with Georges Florovsky’s assessment that “we are all Greek” (theologically speaking). Simultaneously, this must be qualified to some degree as the Latin tradition has contributed to the common theological heritage, so there remains a subtle danger in Florovsky’s statement. Furthermore, the difference between Greek and Jewish culture cannot be overstated in this case, precisely because many Western rite critics, in saying we are all eastern, does not seem intend as merely theologically, but culturally as well. In this case, consistent repetition of the historical context of Jesus is important because the implication in stating Jesus’ easternness without further specificity is a deceptive straw-man.

6. Stratman, “The Roman Rite in Orthodoxy,” p. 3.

7. My own anecdotal experience in the opposite direction (non-Orthodox reflecting on the Divine Liturgy) is perhaps illustrative in this regard. Among non-Orthodox associates, there are varying perspectives on the Divine Liturgy after the first time they see it celebrated. Many are awe-struck by the liturgy, but just as many, if not more in some instances, find themselves turned off to the liturgy, describing it with the same adjectives that Stratman uses, to also include “pompous,” “ostentatious,” “unintelligible,” “confusing,” and “meaningless.” This serves to underscore the point that subjective approach to the liturgy is simply that: subjective. Long-term admirers (Orthodox and non-Orthodox alike) would be want to use the same descriptors, but these, too, are subjective judgements, so they can only say something about what is or is not right for me as an individual, and thus are to be avoided categorically.

8. Richard Southern, Western Society and the Church (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1970), p. 57.

9. Alexander Schmemann, “Some Reflections Upon ‘A Case Study,’” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly Vol. 24, No. 4, 1980, p. 268, emphasis original.

10. Schmemann, Introduction to Liturgical Theology (London: Faith Press, Ltd., 1963), pp. 16 21. See also Schmemann, “Problems of Orthodoxy in America II: The Liturgical Problem,” St Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly (NS) Vol. 8, No. 4, 1964, pp. 164-85.

11. Schmemann, “Some Reflections Upon ‘A Case Study,’” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly Vol. 24, No. 4, 1980, p. 268.

12. Schmemann, “Notes and Comments: The Western Rite,” St Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly (NS) Vol. 2, No. 4, 1958, p. 30.

13. This is brought out, for example, in Schmemann’s comment that making a Western liturgy Orthodox involves more than textual changes (“Some Reflections Upon ‘A Case Study,’” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly Vol. 24, No. 4, 1980, p. 268), but is directly stated in his previous comments that jurisdictional belongings, minimal assent to specific doctrinal and liturgical points, or “mechanical” understanding of Apostolic Succession are “a very real danger to Orthodoxy” and “the replacement of Orthodoxy of ‘content’ by an Orthodoxy of ‘form’” (“Notes and Comments: The Western Rite,” St Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly (NS) Vol. 2, No. 4, 1958, p. 30). Of course, the very same criticism could have been made of convert parishes which use the Eastern rite, so there is not necessarily anything specific to Western Rite Orthodoxy, though Schemann would doubtless argue the danger created is even greater within the Western rite than in if the converts are formed in the Byzantine rite.

14. Michael Johnson, “The “Western Rite”: Is it Right for Orthodoxy,” The Priest Vol. 5, May 1995, http://www.holy-trinity.org/modern/western-rite/johnson.html. However, Johnson is off the mark in his assumption that Overbeck would have found that nothing could be lacking in the English Celebration of the Eastern rite. Timotheos Hatherly advocated for the Eastern rite in English, yet his objective was bitterly opposed by Overbeck as insufficient. See Jack Turner, Cum Illa Greaci Sint, Nos Latini: Western Rite Orthodoxy and the Eastern Orthodox Church (PhD thesis: University of Wales, 2010), pp. 33-4.

15. Anecdotally, the most common parish name is Sts Peter and Paul in the OCA and Holy Trinity in the Antiochian and Greek Orthodox Archdioceses. If we account for the various festal titles, the Theotokos and derivative titles have a solid majority in all three jurisdictions.

16. Of course, in all fairness, one would undoubtedly require an extensive memory, and Orthodox cannot be faulted for preferring the familiar over the “other,” no matter how ancient or venerable. There are encouraging signs, notably in the Moscow Patriarchate’s 2007 decision allowing the third Sunday after Pentecost to be celebrated as All Saints of Britain and Ireland.

17. One example involves an Orthodox priest, related to me by an associate: the priest insisted that there was no Western rite because the Western rite was invented after 1054. When pressed to identify the liturgy used before the Schism, the priest stated that it was the John Chrysostom liturgy, which was used faithfully up to 1053. When further pressed for where the priest had acquired this knowledge, he this was told to him in seminary. Clearly, this is an extreme example, but it is by no means an isolated one.

18. Stratman, “The Roman Rite in Orthodoxy,” p. 2.

19. Ibid., 9.

20. Sopko, “Western Rite Orthodoxy: A Case Study,” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly Vol. 24, No. 4, 1980, p. 255.

21. Tia M. Kolbaba “The Orthodoxy of the Latins in the Twelfth Century,” in Andrew Louth and Augustine Cassidy, eds. Byzantine Orthodoxies (London: SPCK, 2006), p. 201.

22. George Demacopoulos and Aristotle Papanikolaou, “Augustine and the Orthodox,” in Aristotle Papanikolaou and George Demacopoulos, eds. Orthodox Readings of Augustine (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press), pp. 30-6.

23. These were not, of course, the first to decry Western influence in the Orthodox Church. St Nichodemos the Athonite in his collection of cannons of the Orthodox Church is particularly antagonistic towards the Latins, writing in a time of particular anti-Latin popular sentiment. Nicodemos directed his antagonism against the Latins in regards to the validity of their sacraments, particularly baptism in his commentaries on various baptismal canons of the ecumenical councils, most notably Canon 8 – Nicaea, 325; Canon 7 – Constantinople, 381; and Canon 95 – Pentetheke, 691. His commentary goes to great lengths to justify leniency in the admission of Arians, Nestorians, and Monophysites, but in regards to Latins he is unequivocally adamant, stating that all are to be re-baptized, and in conformity with the policy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

24. Christos Yannaras, Orthodoxy and the West: Hellenic Self-Identity in the Modern Age (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2006), p. 16.

25. This could be qualified in the case of Romanides since he rejects Frankish Christianity rather than what he would identify as authentic West Roman Christianity, though the practical result is the same regardless of the phrasing.

26. Cf. Demacopoulos and Papanikolaou, “Augustine and the Orthodox,” in Aristotle Papanikolaou and George Demacopoulos, eds. Orthodox Readings of Augustine (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press), pp. 11-40 and Peter Galadza, “The Liturgical Commemoration of Augustine in the Orthodox Church: An Ambiguous Lex Orandi for an Ambiguous Lex Credendi,” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly Vol. 52, No. 1, 2008, pp. 111-130.

27. Ibid., p. 37.

28. Ibid., 28.

29. John S. Romanides, Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine: An Interplay Between Theology and Society (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1981), p. 60.

30. Though Romanides would say that this “evidence” is flawed because it buys in to the Frankish mythology that the Franks and the West Romans shared a theological lineage distinct from the Byzantine East (see Romanides, op. cit., pp. 63, 69).

31. Aiden Nichols, Light From the East: Authors and Themes in Orthodox Theology (London: Sheed & Ward, 1995), pp. 79-80.

32. Demacopoulos and Papanikolaou, “Augustine and the Orthodox,” in Aristotle Papanikolaou and George Demacopoulos, eds. Orthodox Readings of Augustine (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press), p. 5 n.75.

33. Gregory H. M. Dye, “Notes and Comments: Some Perspectives on the Western Rite – II,” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly Vol.26 No. 2, 1982, p. 125.

34. For further critique of converts and the unique challenges they bring to churches which they convert to, see, Joseph D. Honeycutt, One Flew Over the Onion Dome: American Orthodox Converts, Retreads, and Reverts (Salisbury, MA: Regina Orthodox Press, 2006). The negativism that converts can bring when discussing their former memberships is not to be overlooked. Particularly for those converts coming to Western Rite Orthodoxy, there is frequently a sense of betrayal and not a little bit of bitterness against their former churches. Many convert parishes and clergy came to Orthodoxy from Anglicanism after The Episcopal Church’s decision to ordain women in 1977. It may also be borne in mind that Stratman was himself a convert to the Orthodox Church.

35. Cf. Schmemann’s three-part series in St Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly on the problems of Orthodoxy in America: “Problems of Orthodoxy in America I: The Canonical Problem,” St Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly (NS) Vol. 8 No.2, 1964, pp. 67-85; “Problems of Orthodoxy in America II: The Liturgical Problem,” St Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly (NS) Vol. 8 No. 4, 1964, pp. 164-185; and “Problems of Orthodoxy in America III: The Spiritual Problem,” St Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly (NS) Vol. 9. No. 4, 1965, pp. 171-194.

 

Akathist in Honor of the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos

  Kontakion 1 O Chosen One of all generations, Mother of God and Queen, Who went up from earth to Heaven, reverent hymns upon Thy mo...