A most valuable Assumption

That pun is one of my worst, but I shall let it stand. I'm a bit worn - moving house is exhausting for the best of us, and the 'advice' (...that is, gloom of the 'always expect the worst' school, which people somehow so love to dispense) is more exhausting yet. I'm sure I shall be forgiven if I get a little creative in my thoughts about the feast of (take your choice) Saint Mary the Virgin - the Assumption of Our Lady - the Dormition. By all means, see Father Gregory's very insightful words on the subject. They are relatively brief, but capture more about what is essential in the ascetic vocation than I normally manage to fit on a ream of paper.

For all my love of the patristic writers, I know relatively little about Orthodoxy. (Most of that I learnt from Gregory, but that's another topic for another post. If I ever should drop out of minor stiff upper lip mode and decide to become totally Italian for a few posts, I'll undoubtedly start blubbering about my two co-contributors and how valuable they have been in my spiritual life to a degree that would be quite excessive - unless I chose not to write in English.) Yet a few things do strike me. In the western Church (Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, and whoever else is Catholic out there), somehow the ascetic vocation is slightly embarrassing. :) I'm not about to expound here on the history of this (though, fear not, snippets will appear in later entries), but our preoccupation with original sin and fallen nature tends to bring images of hell and punishment. The East has an advantage in another area as well. I do not sense the uncomfortableness with the physical aspects of creation (the Incarnation at the top of the list) which always dims the Western perception of the Light of the World. (I cannot imagine that, were Edward Schillebeecx Orthodox, he'd ever have been acclaimed for reducing the Resurrection to the disciples' 'experience of forgiveness,' for example. But I don't want to be unkind... I've disliked his 'disincarnation' views ever since he said that monastic life could die out with a proper understanding of the theology of marriage... Get me another gin!)

For all my deep affection for Augustine, his preoccupation with our fallen nature left the western church with an uneasy approach to creation. (I'm not referring only to Augustine's using sexual images to illustrate just how far we had fallen. Unlike Augustine, that area is not what the mediaeval theologians would have called my 'principle defect.' However, I suppose Augustine's longing for a world where he'd have total control over his sexual urges, thereby not having passion compromise his use of reason and will at any time, is not so far from my own version, where everything is Victorian, romantic, tea gowns and champagne - no sweat, grunts, or the nuisance of such things as menstruation and labour pains. It is fortunate we both ended up celibates.) We believe creation is good, indeed, but that it could have been perfect - no pain, no earthquakes, etc. - had we not fallen. Thomas Aquinas (and don't think I don't love him) gave an impression that mankind, in falling, messed up the original plan, requiring the Creator to move to an alternate...

The Dormition, as Father Gregory explained, does not need to be connected to original sin, and to death as some sort of failure. All right, blame the Franciscans (my own Order) for the Immaculate Conception... got Aquinas on that one, did they not? :) But Franciscans, awkward though their preaching could be in catering to the popular market, always did emphasise the Incarnation (and our deification) more than concepts of atonement. They glorified Mary as one whose body was a tabernacle, and connecting the Dormition with the Immaculate Conception would not have had the element of salvation from hell fire and the like. (Be kind to Francesco in calling his body 'Brother Ass.' He was preoccupied with his sins, often excessively so, and was concerned with how he'd misused his own temple of the Holy Spirit.)

In all Marian devotion, there are two elements which must be considered. First, all beliefs about Mary are connected directly with Christology. Second, Mary represents the Church. This is not to say that I disbelieve in the literal truth of such dogmas which date from the early centuries of the Church. Yet I believe they have their depth only when we recall how Creation, magnificent but glorified all the more in Christ's assuming the nature of a creature, can be (I'll borrow this from the Orthodox, perhaps wrongly) an icon. Truths which are beyond us can be made clearer, with allowance for our human limitations, when expressed in the physical.

Mary's perpetual virginity, an embarrassment today to those who want to blame the doctrine for every sexual hangup and act of misogyny in history, is very powerful, if we remember that virginity (of the perpetual and committed, not 'true love waits' variety) is eschatological, pointing to that there is more to our existence than what is on earth alone. I'm not suggesting, of course, that belief in this dogma is essential in the manner that truths about Christ and the Trinity are - nor is it part of our creed. Yet what a wonderful image! In this virginity, Mary (who, you'll recall, always is an image of the Church), reminds us of the Church in eschatological expectation, waiting for all to be glorified at the parousia.

I cannot hope to match what Gregory wrote of the Dormition. However, it moves me deeply to think of Mary's being an icon yet again - a reminder of what is eternal, how we all can expect the resurrection, how our bodies shall be glorified in Christ.

I'm getting too disassociated here, so I suppose it is best to stop for the moment. Yet, when I get to the Eucharist next, I'm going to call the Dormition to mind when I recite, (I believe) "in the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting."