The Funeral of the Mother of God

The article reproduced below, on the Burial Office for the Feast of the Dormition of the Mother of God, is by Father Serge R. Keleher, reprinted from Looking East 12 (1977): 16–34.

An early printed edition of this service is the Ἀκολουθία Ἱερὰ εἰς τὴν Μετάστασιν τῆς Ὑπεραγίας Δεσποίνης ἡμῶν Θεοτόκου καὶ Ἀειπαρθένου Μαρίας (“Sacred Service for the Translation of Our Most Holy Lady the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary”), printed at Venice in 1836 and digitized by the Anemi Digital Library of the University of Crete. This edition, or one like it, was probably what the Ecumenical Patriarchate had in mind when prohibiting this usage in the 1888 Typicon of Violakes (p. 306, note 4):

Immediately after the Katavasia of the Ninth Ode, wherever this feast is celebrated majestically, it is the custom—supposedly for the greater glory and honor of the Theotokos—to chant the so-called Lamentations of the Panagia, in imitation of those of our Lord sung at Matins of Great Saturday. The Great Church, condemning all novelty and misguided zeal, even when done in honor of the Theotokos, officially disapproves of these, and indeed strictly prohibits them.

Introduction

As is well known, Eastern Orthodoxy as a rule does not produce dogmatic “definitions,” or magisterial pronouncements on detailed points of Orthodox belief; to determine the doctrinal position of Eastern Orthodoxy on any particular question, one must examine the various sources and expositions of Orthodox Tradition. Among these sources the liturgical celebration of the Christian mysteries holds a pre-eminent place. This Eastern Orthodox liturgical tradition is also of high significance for Catholics, since it remains in use among those Eastern Orthodox who are in communion with the Holy See of Rome (that is, Byzantine-Uniates), and since Vatican II has declared that “this entire heritage of spirituality and liturgy, of discipline and theology, in their various traditions, belongs to the full catholic and apostolic character of the Church.”^[1]

Ever since Pope Pius XII defined the doctrine of the Bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in 1950, there has been an interest in the Orthodox view of the matter. When Metropolitan Vladimir of the Russian Orthodox Church in Western Europe was asked about it, he suggested that the Orthodox teaching was set forth adequately in the Office for the Feast of the Dormition (celebrated in the East, as in the West, on 15/28 August) and that he personally had nothing to add to the content of those texts.^[2] Since the belief concerning the Assumption remains a question of considerable ecumenical importance, it is surprising that so far no one seems to have done a thorough analysis of the Byzantine-Rite formularies for the Feast. Yet to date no such study has appeared, at least in the accessible Western languages.

Most students of Eastern Orthodoxy assume (correctly, in our opinion) that Orthodoxy does, in fact, agree with the doctrine stated by Pius XII: that the body of the Holy Theotokos, the Ever-Virgin Mary, was taken into Heaven after her death. In a book which is almost the standard manual on Orthodoxy in the English language, Timothy Ware (Archimandrite Kallistos) states definitely:

“But Orthodoxy, while for the most part denying the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, firmly believes in her Bodily Assumption. (Immediately after the Pope proclaimed the Assumption as a dogma in 1950, a few Orthodox (by way of reaction against the Roman Catholic Church) began to express doubts about the Bodily Assumption and even explicitly to deny it; but they are certainly not representative of the Orthodox Church as a whole.) Like the rest of mankind, Our Lady underwent physical death, but in her case the Resurrection of the Body has been anticipated: after death her body was taken up or ‘assumed’ into heaven and her tomb was found to be empty. She has passed beyond death and judgement, and lives already in the Age to Come. Yet she is not thereby utterly separated from the rest of humanity, for that same bodily glory which Mary enjoys now, all of us hope one day to share.”^[3]

and he continues, significantly for our purpose:

“Belief in the Assumption of the Mother of God is clearly and unambiguously affirmed in the hymns sung by the Church on 15 August, the Feast of the ‘Dormition’ or ‘Falling Asleep’.”^[4]

And Father Sergius Bulgakov states similarly:

“The Church believes that, dying a natural death, she was not subject to corruption, but, raised up by her Son, she lives in her glorified body at the right hand of Christ in the heavens.”^[5]

Other citations from introductory works on Orthodoxy could be quoted. In Russian, the Desk-Manual for Clergy by S. V. Bulgakov (not the Bulgakov quoted above) states in part:

“The Church has always believed that the body of the Most Holy Mother of God was taken into heaven… The short sojourn of the body of the Mother of God in the tomb and her transference soul and body into heaven is the reason why the Feast was called the ‘Dormition’ or ‘sleep’ as well as the ‘Assumption.’”^[6]

Such quotations could be multiplied indefinitely. From personal experience, we have heard Orthodox preachers and theologians discuss the Assumption on innumerable occasions, without anyone seeming at all startled by this teaching. Only once did we hear a young (and notably anti-Catholic) Priest question the Assumption: in the course of a sermon he stated that this teaching was neither propounded nor denied by the Orthodox Church and consequently it could not be preached officially, and the individual believer was left free to think as he might wish. The Priest was at once rebuked by the Pastor, and the traditional doctrine stated to the congregation.

So it seems clear that the Orthodox Church holds firmly to the teaching of the Bodily Assumption of the Mother of God. In the absence of an Orthodox “definition” of this teaching, however, it is not clear just how the Orthodox Church understands this teaching. The sources quoted above (and many more besides) all refer us to the Liturgy of the Feast of the Dormition, so if we would seek a further, deeper understanding of the Orthodox conception of the Bodily Assumption of the Mother of God, and the significance of that teaching in the life of the Church and the individual believer, evidently we must examine the liturgical texts.

Here we arrive at the problem which is our theme. Alone among the Great Feasts celebrated by Eastern Orthodoxy (and this unique feature of the Dormition may perhaps indicate how important the Feast is), the Feast of the Dormition of the Mother of God possesses, not one, but two formularies for Vespers and Orthros! If these differ in their teaching—and they do—then theologians wishing to understand the Orthodox tradition concerning the Assumption must be able to evaluate each of these formularies and determine which is to be considered the authentic bearer of the Orthodox tradition.

(N.B. It is theoretically conceivable that both formularies could be equally authentic, or that it would be necessary to select portions from each; that such in fact is not the case I trust is demonstrated below.) It is our thesis that the first, or “normal” formulary for the Feast is in fact the authentic one, and that the other, which purports to be a second formulary to replace the first one, is nothing more than a paraliturgical devotion of recent origin, valuable for poetic, iconographic, musical and spiritual purposes, but worthless as a source for theological discussion. Let us consider each formulary in turn.

I. The ‘Normal’ Formulary for the Dormition

The Divine Services of the Byzantine Rite (that is, the ‘Proper Formularies’) for those Feast Days and commemorations which fall on fixed dates in the course of the year are found in the Service Book called the Menaion (literally, the Book-of-the-Months). In its complete form, the Menaion contains at least one full formulary, or set of Propers, for the Divine Office and Eucharistic Liturgy for every day of the year. Such a complete Menaion is usually printed in twelve volumes, one for each month; there does not exist an English translation of the complete Menaion as yet. However, for smaller Churches or communities, or for private individuals, an abridged Menaion is often printed in one volume containing only the material for the Great Feasts (the selection of Feasts differs from one edition to another); such a book is called the Festal Menaion. There have been two editions of the Festal Menaion in English: a Ferial (sic) Menaion or Book of Services for the Twelve Great Festivals and the New Year’s Day, translated by N. Orloff, was published by J. Davy & Sons, London 1900; and the Festal Menaion, translated from the original Greek, by Mother Mary and Archimandrite Kallistos Ware was published by Faber and Faber, London 1969. The Orloff version includes several more Feasts than the version of Mother Mary and Father Kallistos; the latter, however, gives a wealth of introductory material essential to the scholar. Both editions give the ‘normal’ formulary for the Feast of the Dormition. Neither edition gives the supposed second formulary, as we shall see later.

Without exception, every edition of the complete Menaion or the Festal Menaion which has come to our attention gives the ‘normal’ formulary for the Feast of the Dormition, with only the most minor textual variations. Further, those popular prayer-books or liturgical compendia published for clergy and chanters which give extracts from the festal offices invariably choose the ‘normal’ formulary for the Feast of the Dormition.^[7] And, finally, the Typicon^[8] of Divine Services, as well as the annual Ordo of the Orthodox Church do not mention any service other than this one. With justice, then, we have termed this first formulary the ‘normal’ version; it is certainly this formulary that is in normal use, and that is prescribed by the official Orthodox service-books.

Without making any thorough-going analysis, let us note some particular characteristics of the ‘normal’ formulary:

A. Scope

This formulary includes all the material one would expect for the Propers of a Great Feast of the Mother of God^[9]: the changeable parts are given for Small Vespers^[10], Great Vespers with Litia (the solemn procession to the Narthex on feast days), Orthros with Polyeleos (the solemn chanting of Psalms 134 and 135, done on feast days), and the Divine Liturgy; there are no particular exceptions to the usages one would expect on such a feast, nor is anything omitted that one would expect to find. In its scope, then, this is indeed a normal formulary.

B. Dogmatic Texts

1. Texts concerning the Bodily Assumption:

   Of necessity, we must make a selection for purposes of discussion; in general these texts are characterized by a joyful sobriety. So, for example:

   at the Lity, verse 1: “It was right that the eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word should see the Dormition of His Mother according to the flesh, even the final mystery concerning her: that so they might be witnesses not only to the Ascension of the Saviour but also to the Translation of her who gave Him birth…”^[11]

   at the Lity, Doxasticon: “For today is heaven opened wide as it receives the Mother of Him who cannot be contained. The earth, as it yields up the Source of life, is robed in blessing and majesty. The hosts of angels, present with the fellowship of the apostles, gaze in great fear at her who bore the Cause of life, now that she is translated from life to life. Let us all venerate and implore her: Forget not, O Lady, thy ties of kinship with those who commemorate in faith the feast of thine all-holy Dormition.”^[12]

   at the Aposticha, Doxasticon: “On high the most holy and venerable of the angelic powers bowed in wonder before this marvel, and said to one another: ‘Open wide your gates and receive her who bore the Creator of heaven and earth. With songs of praise let us glorify her precious and holy body…’”^[13]

   From the Canons: Troparion of Canticle One: “… like thy Son and Creator, thou hast submitted to the laws of nature in a manner above nature. Therefore, dying thou hast risen to live eternally with thy Son.”^[14]

   Troparion of Canticle Three: “… thine end was conformable to nature: but because thou hast borne the true Life, thou hast departed to dwell with the divine Life Himself.”^[15]

   Troparion of Canticle Six: “Life arose from thee without destroying the seals of thy virginity. How then could the spotless tabernacle of thy body, the source of Life, become a partaker of death?”^[16]

2. Texts giving traditional details of the Dormition:

   These details are found in the Orthodox “recalling” of the events of the Dormition. As in many cases with Orthodox teaching, it is difficult to say just how “binding” these details are held to be. So, for example:

   1. the belief that the Apostles were summoned miraculously to the death of the Theotokos:

      Doxasticon of ‘Lord, I have cried:’ “By the royal command of God, the divinely inspired apostles were caught up from over all the world into the clouds on high. Reaching thine immaculate body, the source of Life, they saluted it with mighty honour…”^[17]

   2. the belief that the Lord miraculously prevented desecration of the body of the Theotokos:

      Troparion of Canticle Three: “The Lord guarded with the glory of the Godhead the honour due to the living Ark in which the Word took flesh; and in His just vengeance He intervened to cut off the sacrilegious hands of the presumptuous unbeliever.”^[18]

   Other such details could be found easily; in our opinion they do not affect the basic teaching of the service as a whole. Such details are characteristic of Byzantine-Rite festal services. From the dogmatic point of view, anyone familiar with Byzantine expression will find nothing unusual in this formulary.

II. The “Burial Formulary” for the Dormition

The alternative formulary which is sometimes called the “Burial Office of the Mother of God” or the “Funeral of the Mother of God” is not found in an edition of the complete Menaion which has come to our attention. Likewise it is not mentioned in the Typicon nor in the annual Ordo published by several different Orthodox Churches, nor is it in most editions of the Festal Menaion. In fact the text of this service is so hard to locate that one might well wonder why it is worth investigating it at all, were it not that in very recent years it has suddenly acquired great popularity, particularly in North America, and is being celebrated in many places amidst great publicity, and many people are no doubt being led to assume that it is the typical Orthodox celebration of the Dormition of Our Lady.

A Greek text of this service certainly exists; friends of mine have testified to attending celebrations of it conducted in Greek. I regret that my best efforts in North America, Athens, Rome and Chevetogne did not succeed in locating a copy of this Greek text. Without it we cannot be certain, but it is highly probable that the Greek text was written before the Church-Slavonic version which we do have. Left to themselves it is not likely that the Russians (who are well known for their liturgical conservatism) would have composed such a service at all, and internal evidence (particularly the music of the Third Station) points strongly to Greek origin. Beyond that, we do not know. We might speculate that it was composed privately, perhaps in Jerusalem (for which there is some slight evidence that we shall note below) and circulated there in manuscript; it would be easy for pilgrims to bring the manuscripts to all parts of the Orthodox world.

Bulgakov’s Desk-Manual^[19] appends the following note to its discussion of the feast:

“At Orthros on the day of the Dormition ‘in certain countries the funeral song is performed, especially if the temple is dedicated to this feast; it is done as follows: an analogion is set in the midst of the Church and on it an Icon of the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos. The Priest and Deacon, fully vested, come forth bearing candles through the Royal Doors and they stand in ranks; the superior censes cruciformly round about the Icon on the analogion; then he censes the rest, and the whole Church. The singers chant the refrain, on tone: ‘All we generations bless thee, O Virgin Theotokos, most blessed and all-immaculate Mother of our God.’ And we sing the Kathisma ‘Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the Lord,’ ‘Glory, both now:’ ‘Alleluia’ thrice. In their turn, the Priests cense during each Station. Then the second choir begins the refrain: ‘It is meet to bless thee, O Theotokos, more honourable than the Cherubim and beyond compare than the Seraphim more glorious.’ Then ‘Thy hands have made me and fashioned me:’ ‘Glory, both now’ ‘Alleluia’ Thrice. The refrain at the Third Station: ‘With hymns do all we generations bless the one Theotokos.’ Then ‘Look upon me and have mercy upon me according to the judgements of them that love Thy Name:’ ‘Glory both now,’ ‘Alleluia’ thrice. And when they have kissed the Icon that is set forth, the Priests and Deacons go into the Altar. Then ‘Praise ye the Name of the Lord’ and the Magnification as is prescribed.’ (Acathistos to the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos, Kiev, 1861). Thus it is done on the Feast of the Dormition at the Monastery of the Caves, Kiev…”

This is not yet our “Burial Formulary,” but we can see in which direction developments are proceeding. Several points are noteworthy:

1. Bulgakov’s source-book was printed in 1861—very recent date as such things go.
2. the source-book Bulgakov quotes is not an official service-book, but a pamphlet Acathistos—itself a paraliturgical, private devotion.
3. This Usage is specifically attributed to the Monastery of the Caves at Kiev, whose main Catholicon was dedicated to the Dormition of the Mother of God.

In his information for August seventeenth, Bulgakov gives the following note:

“In the Gethsemane skete near the Laura of the Holy Trinity and Saint Serge (in the Moscow gubernia) the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos is celebrated on the seventeenth of August according to a special service named “The Praises, or the Order at the Holy Entombment of Our Most Holy Lady the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary, sung on the seventeenth day of August in Gethsemane Skete, and served in the Laura on 15 August.” The peculiarity of this service lies in its following the pattern of the service of Orthros of Great Saturday.”^[20]

This indeed seems to be our “Burial Office,” though the scanty information does not make us absolutely certain. It is surely something very close to the “Burial Office,” at any rate. Let us note that it is not celebrated on the Feast itself, nor in the main Church of the Monastery; the ‘normal’ formulary is used on 15 August at the Monastery, and only two days later is this ‘peculiar’ service held at Gethsemane Skete. One suspects that some pilgrim—perhaps one of the monks—had returned from Jerusalem with the news that the “Burial Office” was being served at the Tomb of the Theotokos in Gethsemane, and the presence of the Gethsemane Skete attached to the Laura induced the monks to begin to use it, but that their fidelity to tradition would not allow them to substitute the “Burial Office” for the ‘normal’ formulary; hence the celebration of the “Burial Office” on the seventeenth.

Constantine Nikolsky in his Introduction to the Study of the Order of Divine Service of the Orthodox Church^[21] gives the same information quoted above from Bulgakov’s Desk-Manual regarding the practice at the Monastery of the Caves^[22], and suggests that at one time Psalm 118 and its poetic refrains may have been sung after the Sixth Canticle of the festal Canon; for this point he quotes a printed work of 1854 which itself refers to a manuscript of 1645 from the Holy Trinity Monastery. If that is true, it might have been a fore-runner of the “Burial Office”; we have no other evidence for any such practice prior to the Nineteenth Century but there is no reason why it could not have been composed and circulated earlier. Nikolsky goes on to describe the practice of Gethsemane Skete^[23] as mentioned above; he gives sufficient details to make us certain that the service held there on 17 August was, in fact, our “Burial Office.” And he adds this all-important footnote:

“Concerning this service (which was printed in Moscow in 1872), it is stated on the reverse side of the title page: Translated from the Greek in 1846 by Professor Xolmogoroff and corrected by the Most Reverend Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow.”

This information demonstrates to our satisfaction that the “Burial Office” is a recent innovation; the traditional Divine Services of the Orthodox Church were translated into Old Slavonic many centuries ago, and it was never the practice to give the name of the translator. It also seems clear that the “Burial Office” was not thought to be an “official” service (what used to be called “public liturgy” in the Roman Church); otherwise it would not be stated that Metropolitan Philaret “corrected” the text.

In his description of the Burial Office, Nikolsky states that the Troparia at The Lord is God are “taken from the Hierosalymitan formulary”^[24]; this is one of the scanty bits of evidence mentioned above to indicate that the Burial Office might originate in Jerusalem.

We are tempted to take the words “translated from the Greek in 1846 by Professor Xolmogoroff…” as giving conclusive proof that Greek was the original language of the Burial Office. However, it sometimes has happened in the history of the Russian Church that people have published various things of a religious nature claiming that they were translated from the Greek—so as to give the work greater authority—when in fact they were composed in Church Slavonic (the best-known example is the Trebnyk, or Rituale, of Metropolitan Peter Moghila). In the case of the Burial Office, this is a clear possibility (though, again, we do in fact believe that Greek is the original language of the service).

The 1872 Moscow edition of the Burial Office mentioned above is a bibliographic rarity; there is a copy in the library of Saint Vladimir’s Seminary which we were able to consult. It is printed as a separate booklet, in black only (which again is abnormal—official service books were printed in two colours at Imperial expense before the Russian Revolution), in traditional Church-Slavonic orthography; it contains only the text of the Burial Office—not the text of the ‘normal’ formulary as well, and gives no music. The text given is identical to the text printed in the two later Moscow editions, except for orthography. So far as we can determine, there was no other printing or edition of the Burial Office in Church-Slavonic until 1950.

In the latter year, the Moscow Patriarchate published a 104-page book titled Church Service on the Dormition of the Mother of God. This book first gives the ‘normal’ formulary for the Feast, then some ritual notes, and then (pages 27–40) the Burial Office, with the title “The Praises, or the Order at the Holy Entombment of Our Most Holy Lady the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary.” This is the same title as that given by Bulgakov and Nikolsky, above, but there is no mention this time of the Gethsemane Skete (we do not know if in 1950 that Skete was still functioning), nor is there any indication that the Burial Office should be celebrated on 17, rather than 15 August. And there is no mention of the translator, or of Metropolitan Philaret. Thus the “Burial Office” is presented in 1950 simply as an alternative to the ‘normal’ formulary, with the appearance of official standing. The 1950 book also gives musical settings for the more important excerpts from both the ‘normal’ formulary and the Burial Office. This book is printed in Soviet-Russian orthography, with the accents indicated; the language remains Church-Slavonic. The 1950 edition has been out of print for several years, but copies are easily found.

In 1970, three separate editions of the Burial Office were published, each independently of the others. The Moscow Patriarchate published an edition of the Festal Menaion (800 pages), again in Soviet-Russian orthography with accents indicated, giving the formularies for the major festivals of the liturgical year. Services are given for some 40 feasts plus Holy Week. For the feast of the Dormition, the ‘normal’ formulary is given first, then the “Burial Office,” exactly as in the 1950 Moscow edition. This publication of the “Burial Office” in an official book of services for the major feasts gives the Burial Office yet greater standing as an “official” alternative to the normal formulary. Except when noted otherwise, references to the Burial Office will be taken from this 1970 Moscow edition. This edition is still in print, and has attained widespread distribution.

In the same year the Ukrainian Greek-Orthodox Church of Canada published a General and Festal Menaion in Winnipeg in modern Ukrainian. This edition, produced by mimeograph, claims to be a reprint of a Kievan edition of 1927; all my attempts to locate a copy of this alleged 1927 edition for purposes of comparison failed. Services are provided for 46 feast days, plus the common of the various categories of the Saints; each of these services has been somewhat abbreviated. On page 207 this book gives, after the text of the ‘normal’ formulary for the Dormition, this note:

“In ancient times at the Monastery of the Caves in Kiev and perhaps in many other Churches of Ukraine on the Feast of the Dormition there was held in the course of the Dormition Vigil the Funeral of the Mother of God, just as the Funeral of Christ is held (the Epitaphios) at Orthros of Passion Saturday. This ancient custom is presently being renewed in the Ukrainian Churches, and the Epitaphios of the Mother of God is being erected.”

An abbreviated Ukrainian translation of the Burial Office follows (the translation is not very good—which is true of the rest of the book as well). The version is noteworthy in one particular: it does call for Polyeleos, unlike the 1872, 1950, and 1970 Moscow editions and the two English translations about to be discussed. Most Ukrainian Churches in North America have copies of this 1970 Winnipeg Festal Menaion; we do not know how many use the Burial Office in preference to the ‘normal’ formulary, but the custom is certainly spreading.

And also in 1970 the (Uniate) Byzantine Rite Eparchy of Parma published a separate booklet titled The Burial Service of Praise in Honour of the Ever-Virgin, Mary, Mother of God Feast of Her Dormition (in 28 pages). This booklet was also printed by mimeograph and appears to have been reprinted already several times; its use is becoming very widespread among Ruthenian Greek-Catholics in the USA, among whom it is fast becoming the only Office for the Feast of the Dormition (and as Eastern Churches in North America go, this group is quite large).

It appears to be still in print and is readily available from the Eparchy of Parma and from many Ruthenian parishes and clergy. The text of the Burial Office is abbreviated, and the translation, unfortunately, is not good. It is more complete than the most recent edition, which is the last that we shall note.

The Monastery of Our Saviour, Steubenville, Ohio, published a booklet (without date—it was printed in 1975) titled “Excerpts from the Service for the Funeral of the Mother of God”; in fact it gives excerpts from the three Stations of Psalm 118 (not the actual Psalm verses, but the poetic compositions) with the translations somewhat altered to fit the meter of the Byzantine tones used for these chants, and the text of the first Canon (used in both the ‘normal’ formulary and the Burial Office).

So we see that the Burial Office is suddenly gaining strength, and in many places superseding the ‘normal’ formulary for the Vigil of the Dormition. Let us now note some particular characteristics of the Burial Office.

A. Scope

The Burial Office provides material only for Great Vespers and Orthros (that is, the Vigil). It does not include material for Small Vespers or Divine Liturgy (both of which are always provided in the service for a Great Feast).

B. Structure

The structure of the Burial Office is unique. At Great Vespers it provides all the material found in the normal formulary, plus the following peculiar features:

1. a Prosomion at “Lord, I have cried” that imitates the Doxasticon of Holy and Great Saturday but describing the “sleep in the tomb” of the Virgin Mary instead of Christ.^[25]
2. three following Prosomia at “Lord, I have cried” that imitate the three Prosomia sung at the Aposticha of Vespers on Good Friday, during the first Procession with the Epitaphios of the Lord Jesus. Again, the texts have been changed just sufficiently to refer to Mary instead of Christ.^[26]
3. a final Prosomion at “Lord, I have cried” that imitates the Doxasticon of the Apostichon of Good Friday, “Thou Who art clothed with light as with a garment…” once again changed to refer to Mary instead of Christ.^[27]
4. (in the Church-Slavonic editions only) a proper Prokeimenon to replace that of the daily cycle. Such a feature is never found at first Vespers of a Great Feast, and is another indication that this service is paraliturgical.^[28]

The greatest innovations are found at Orthros:

1. the erection of a tomb in the center of the temple, and the setting forth therein of an Epitaphion (Shroud) of the Mother of God, just as is done on Good Friday to the Epitaphion of the Lord.
2. the troparia chanted at “The Lord is God” (during which the Epitaphion is brought forth from the Altar to the tomb), which closely imitate the Troparia of Holy Saturday.^[29]
3. the poetic compositions chanted alternately with the verses of Psalm 118 (called “Lamentations” or “Praises” in Greek, “Encomia”). These are modeled on the great Funeral of Christ at Orthros of Holy Saturday; once again the references are changed to apply to Mary.^[30]
4. the absence of the Polyeleos, always chanted on a Great Feast at Orthros, and the Magnification, always used on Great Feasts in the Slavonic Churches. The 1970 Ukrainian edition, unlike all the others, does call for Polyeleos and Magnification and the note quoted above from Bulgakov suggests that they were sung during the partial version of the Burial Office at the Monastery of the Caves in Kiev.^[31]
5. the special version of the “Evlogeitaria” following Psalm 118. The usual Evlogeitaria, sung at Orthros of Great Saturday, and on most Sundays of the year, are hymns in praise of the Resurrection of the Lord. These imitate that version closely, with the references changed from Christ to Mary.
6. the procession around the temple with the Epitaphios during the singing of “Holy God” following the Great Doxology. This is an exact imitation of the identical procession with the Epitaphios of the Lord on Holy Saturday.

There are a few minor differences in structure from the usual pattern, but those need not concern us. Let us note that many apparent structural deviations of the English version published by the Eparchy of Parma are common practice in that jurisdiction, not unique features of the Burial Office.

C. Dogmatic Implications

We may state at the outset that this entire Burial Office is Mariology run riot. The principal expression of this tendency lies in the artistic imitation of texts of Good Friday and Holy Saturday, and their adaptation to the Mother of God. Here it must be remembered that most Orthodox faithful are thoroughly familiar with the major services of Holy Week and immediately recognize the allusions to the Holy Week texts in the texts of the Burial Office. The impression strongly conveyed is that the Assumed Theotokos is to be glorified as the Risen Lord is to be glorified—a startling notion, to say the least. We may note a few examples of such tendencies in the actual texts themselves:

1. the third Troparion at The Lord is God:

   “… arise, O Queen (and) grant to all great mercy.”

2. the second Troparion at The Lord is God:

   “When you descended to death, O Immortal Mother of Life, Hades was taken by surprise and trembled in fear…”

   Compare the corresponding Troparion of Holy Saturday:

   “When you descended to death, O Immortal, then you harrowed Hell…”

3. from the first Station of the Lamentations:

   “Do not leave us now orphans, O Mother…”

4. from the second Station:

   “Now heaven is open even to men. Come, then, all you Christ-bearers: let us enter with the Mother of God.”

   Is this supposed to mean that it was the Assumption of Mary that opened heaven to men?

5. from the second Station:

   “Once before Christ descended for us into Hades, and now the Virgin Mary ascends to heaven for our joy and help.”

6. from the Evlogeitaria:

   “You… gave joy to the disciples in the place of sadness, O Virgin, You rose on the third day from the tomb just as did the Lord.”

   Did the Theotokos rise from the dead and ascend to Heaven by her own power?

And there are many more such texts in the service.

We trust it is clear that while such expressions may provoke devotion, any attempt to build a Mariology on them would lead to swift disaster. As an instance of this, I note the following personal experience. Last year on 15 August I participated in a celebration of the Burial Office during a large pilgrimage in western Ohio. The homilist (whom I prefer not to name) emphatically and repeatedly told the assembled congregation that the Feast of the Assumption is “the Pascha of humanity”; one seriously wonders what such thinking does for the doctrine of the two natures in Christ. Aspirations to the Theotokos such as those quoted above may, perhaps, be justified as a development of the Orthodox tradition of theosis and/or the Roman Catholic teaching that Mary is the “Co-Redemptrix” and “Mediatrix of all graces,” but even then careful explanation is certainly called for. The contrast to the sobriety of the normal formulary for the Feast of the Dormition, and the Mariology found in the formularies of the other Feasts of the Theotokos, is most striking.

III. A Note on Music and Iconography

Music and iconography are integral parts of all Orthodox worship. As noted above, one of the innovations of the Burial Office is the use of an Epitaphios, or Shroud, of the Theotokos. This is a large Icon of the Dormition surrounded by one of the texts of the Feast and mounted on cloth as the Epitaphios of the Lord is mounted. As an indication of the spreading use of the Burial Office we may note that the largest seller of Byzantine-Rite liturgical wares, Crown Church Supplies in Athens, has found it necessary to advertise for sale the “Epitaphios of the Assumption of the Holy Virgin Mary” in their most recent catalogue (1975). Prior to 1975, such an Epitaphios was not commercially available. Its presentation now may be expected to encourage still further use of the Burial Office.

There is an excellent discussion of the Icon of the Dormition of the Theotokos in The Meaning of Icons, Ouspensky and Lossky, Boston Massachusetts and Basle Switzerland, 1969, on pages 215–216, bringing out the meaning of the various details of the Icon and their relation to the Feast and its celebration. They comment on the sobriety of the texts of the Feast, and then add this footnote:

“The office of the ‘Burial of the Mother of God’ (August 17th) is of very late origin, and is on the contrary too explicit; it is copied from the Matins of Holy Saturday (‘Burial of Christ’).”

As to music, much of the strength of the Burial Office lies in its use of music otherwise reserved to Good Friday and Holy Saturday; the use of these chants, even though set with different words, reinforces in the faithful the identification of the Assumption of Mary with the Pascha of Christ that the Burial Office wishes to convey. Thus the additional chants at Vespers noted above follow the music of their prototypes from Holy Week; the Troparia at The Lord is God are sung to a well-known setting otherwise reserved for the Troparia of Holy Saturday, and the Lamentations are sung to the setting of the Lamentations of the Lord. The melody for the Third Station is especially well-known and very much loved, as anyone who has attended the “Funeral of Christ” in a Greek Church can testify. It must be emphasized again that these melodies are well familiar to even the run-of-the-mill Orthodox believer in their Holy Week use, and hence produce a powerful impression when the believer hears them again on 15 August.

There is only one recording of some portions of the Burial Office; it is sung by the Nuns of the Russian Church of Saint Mary Magdalene in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jerusalem and was recorded by RCA for the Jewish (!) Music Research Center of Hebrew University, published in 1972 with the title Nuns of Gethsemane Sing Russian-Orthodox Prayer-Chants. The excellent accompanying notes are in Russian, English, and Hebrew; the hymns are chanted in Church-Slavonic with the exception of one hymn chanted in Arabic. The third piece on the first side of the disk is of interest to us; it consists of several extracts from the Third Station of the Lamentations from the Burial Office, sung to the melody mentioned above. The accompanying note says:

“3. Order of the Entombment of the Mother of God. Feast of the Assumption, Matins. Byzantine tune adapted from the Greek-Orthodox Church in Jerusalem. This melody is heard with a Russian text only in Jerusalem churches.”

and an English translation follows of some of the verses that are sung.

As mentioned above, the Moscow edition of 1950 also gives musical settings for the major hymns of the Burial Office; this is the only printed music for the Burial Office we know of.

The musical tradition of the normal formulary is quite rich; the 1950 Moscow edition gives many ancient chants in harmonized form with modern notation. Several chants for the feast are found in the Irmologion of the Pochaev Laura (reprinted in Toronto by the Basilian Press; no date), and a complete set of chants, to znamenny tradition, unharmonized and in the old notation (similar to Gregorian notation) is found in the book of festival chants published in Moscow in 1888 (full Russian title in bibliography), page 90-reverse through 102-reverse.^[32] One feature of the chant of the Dormition is unique and interesting: the Doxasticon of Great Vespers is sung in all eight tones, one after another. The arrangement of the tones (1, 5, 2, 6, 3, 7, 4, 8, 1) reflects the origin of tones four through eight—they are variations of the original four tones.

Various portions of the Dormition service have been recorded several times, in Greek and in Old Slavonic. We may note particularly the following:

1. in Greek: Hymns to the Repose of the Mother of God, Columbia 33 XBZ 1202. This is 13 in the ZOE series of records of Byzantine Church music from Athens. It is of the same good quality as the rest of the series.
2. in Slavonic: Maria Himmelfahrt in der Ostkirche harmonia mundi HM 25 130. Sung by the monks of Chevetogne.

Conclusion

In terms of origin, we have seen the indications which point to a very recent and unofficial origin of the Burial Office, and its gradual successful intrusion into the service books as an alternative celebration for the Feast of the Dormition. We have noted that it was not celebrated originally on 15 August, but two days later, and not everywhere but only in designated places, and that its first printed edition shows clear signs of its paraliturgical nature. We have seen also that the usual, ‘normal’ formulary for the celebration of the Feast is found in all the sources.

As to structure, we have noted that the Burial Office departs significantly from the pattern of Orthodox festal celebration; it is not simply a variant formulary, but an innovative copying of the Holy Week services to apply to Mary what is said concerning Christ. It shows at least one sign—the Prokeimenon of Vespers—of being divorced from the regular cycle of the Divine Office of the Byzantine Rite.

As to dogma, we find that while the normal formulary presents a Mariology and an understanding of the Assumption that we would expect, the Burial Office contains a riotous and uncontrolled development that approaches deification of Mary and requires great generosity to be capable of orthodox interpretation. Such texts cannot possibly be ancient, and we have no reason to think them anything but recent, and innovative.

Although the Burial Office has achieved approbation from the Moscow Patriarchate, the Ukrainian Greek-Orthodox Church of Canada (which is not recognized by ecumenical Orthodoxy), and the Byzantine Rite Eparchy of Parma, and hence can claim approval for use and inclusion in very recent official service books, we consider, in view of what has been said above, that our thesis stated earlier has been proved correct: the Burial Office is nothing but a recent paraliturgical devotion and useless as a theological source. Theologians who encounter it, in print or in celebration, should treat it with the greatest caution.

Several problems still remain. Where did the Burial Office originate, and what was its language of composition? Have any authorities of the Greek-speaking Churches ruled on its use? What moved the Moscow Patriarchate to publish it twice in twenty years and to permit (at least by implication) its celebration on 15 August, instead of on 17 August as was earlier the case? We trust someone will take up the matter and resolve some of these questions, but the answers will not affect our basic conclusion.

Selected Bibliography

[Note: The original article has a selected bibliography, discography, and iconography section which has not been reproduced here.]

Notes

---

1. Unitatis Redintegratio—17, Abbot-Gallagher ed. page 360. ↩︎

2. The Festal Menaion, translated by Mother Mary and Archimandrite Kallistos Ware, Faber & Faber, London, 1969, page 65. ↩︎

3. The Orthodox Church, (Archimandrite Kallistos) Timothy Ware, Penguin Books 1973, page 264—emphasis in original. (NB. the portion enclosed in red brackets is the author’s footnote to his own text). ↩︎

4. ibid. ↩︎

5. The Orthodox Church, (Fr.) Sergius Bulgakov, 1953 (no publisher), page 135 (my copy was privately reprinted; no date). ↩︎

6. Nastolnaia Kniga dlia Sviashchenno-Tserkovno-Sluzhitelei S. V. Bulgakov Xarkov 1900 pp 284–285. N. B. Extracts from Bulgakov’s material on the Dormition appear in One Church Vol. 20, pp 178–179. ↩︎

7. A few examples:

   • in Greek:

     1. Megas kai Ieros Synekdimos, Astir, Athens 1961.
     2. Iera Synopsis, Astir, Athens, 1972.
     3. Anthologion, volume 4, Rome 1968.

   • in Church-Slavonic:

     1. Vechirnia i Utrenia, Mundare, Canada 1945.
     2. Vielikij Tserkovnij Izbornik, fourth edition, Uzhgorod, Czechoslovakia 1925.

   • in French:

     1. La Prière des Eglises de Rite Byzantin, volume II book 1 “Grand Fetes Fixes”, Mercenier and Bainbridge, Chevetogne 1953.

   • in English:

     1. Byzantine Daily Worship, translated by Metropolitan Joseph Raya, Alleluia Press 1969.
     2. Service Book of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic and Apostolic Church translated by Isabel F. Hapgood, approved by Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow. Third Edition New York 1956.
   ↩︎

8. Typicon (in Church-Slavonic) Moscow 1906, reprinted Moscow 1954. ↩︎

9. Compare with the texts for the Nativity and the Entrance into the Temple of the Mother of God—both Feasts are found in the English Festal Menaion by Mother Mary and Fr. Kallistos. ↩︎

10. At the present time, in practice Small Vespers is rarely served. ↩︎

11. Appendix II, page 508. ↩︎

12. ibid. page 509. ↩︎

13. ibid. page 511. ↩︎

14. ibid. page 515. ↩︎

15. ibid. page 516. ↩︎

16. ibid. page 520. ↩︎

17. ibid. page 507. ↩︎

18. ibid. page 516. ↩︎

19. Nastolnaia Kniga, op. cit., page 286. ↩︎

20. ibid. page 289. ↩︎

21. Saint Petersburg 1900 (in Russian). ↩︎

22. Nikolsky, pages 571–572. ↩︎

23. ibid. page 573. ↩︎

24. ibid. ↩︎

25. The additional Prosomia for “Lord, I have cried” are not given in the English or Ukrainian editions of the Burial Office. The Church-Slavonic texts are found in the Moscow 1970 edition, pages 720–721. There is an English translation of the Doxasticon for Holy Saturday in Holy Week as sung in the Orthodox Church (translated by Mother Mary), France, 1969. ↩︎

26. Church-Slavonic text as noted above (25); English translation of the Good Friday texts in Holy Week, pages 104–105. ↩︎

27. ibid. The text is also given in the 1970 Winnipeg Ukrainian edition, page 208. ↩︎

28. page 721 in the Moscow 1970 edition. ↩︎

29. cf. Appendix III, page 14. English translation of the Holy Saturday Troparia in Holy Week, page 113. Note that these translations are done in different styles; the resemblance is much more apparent in Church-Slavonic. ↩︎

30. partial English translation in Appendix III, pages 15–20. For the Holy Saturday verses to the Lord, cf. Holy Week, pages 113–134. ↩︎

31. page 207 in the Winnipeg 1970 edition. ↩︎

32. Until recently Church-Slavonic books only numbered every other page—that is, each leaf. ↩︎