"Ever sinless" Theotokos

[Kreikkalainen]

She is perhaps our "Mother in-law".

Now that's what I call innovative doctrine!

Sorry couldn't resist the temptation.

Goodnight for now . It's far too late here & I got to be at work in like 6 hours latest . See you all in the same thread whenever I find the time again.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I always thought in a sense when Jesus gave her to John to look after and said "behold thy mother" he was on one level giving her to the whole church.

But now that I think about it I can't remember if I ever heard that said or just thought so myself... because it's not like John particularly represents the church or that this was addressed to the apostles in general. Actually now I think about it was it even John?
LOL. My tagline is so true.

Indeed, it was the evangelist John to whom Christ gave His mother, "the disciple whom Jesus loved". We inherit her as mother (or mother in-law ) by becoming united to Him. The significance of this is not so easy to determine, however.

I believe this was a final symbolic gesture to show that those faithful to him indeed inherit everything from Him (even His divine nature, which we participate with by His divine energies)

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Hello Dn Patrick

I always enjoy a good discussion .

Point 3. So in your view Scripture says the Theotokos sinned? Can you elaborate, as to where, how...?

I'll tackle this one. The Bible says that everyone has sinned; Romans 3:23.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Hello Dn Patrick


Veneration is a way to show great respect and love for the holy. It is to treat something or someone with reverence, deep respect, and honor. Veneration is distinct from worship, for worship is a total giving over of the self to be united with God, while veneration is showing delight for what God has done. There can be confusion because one may venerate what one worships as well as venerate others. Veneration is part of worship to the Orthodox faithful, but they show love and respect to more than the God they worship.

I guess this is basics though. I don't even understand why you are asking. Does the above definition also cover you?

Well herein lies the difficulty. Now if I said the following phrase, would it be considered to you as worship?

"To God let us run now most earnestly, we sinners all and wretched ones, and fall down in repentance calling from the depths of our souls."

That certainly sounds like worship to me. How about if I said this?

"To the Theotokos let us run now most earnestly, we sinners all and wretched ones, and fall down in repentance calling from the depths of our souls"

Now this is supposed to be veneration? The latter quote is from the supplicatory canon to the Theotokos. I think we have a double standard here. If we can't distinguish between veneration and worship by our words, then all that leaves us with is interpretation and semantics, a rather precarious manner of distinction that can be problematic and rather difficult to distinguish between. (I might even add dangerous!) Protestants who come across such a prayer or hymn accuse us of Mariolatry. Are they illogical in their thinking? They claim that certain words and phrases should be reserved for God alone. I can't say I disagree with them on the latter.

 

[Joshua G.]

The idea of Mary being our Mother through Christ does not seem to be as explicit in EO writings. That said I have never seen it denied, it makes sense, it helps me and I do remember reading prayers or writings of some sort from an EO sourse that referred to her as Mother (not just Mother of God or Christ).

So, while the teaching is not as explicit in Orthodoxy (as far as I can see) I cannot see how she is not our Mother or how such an idea works against Orthodoxy. Rather, it helps me understand Orthodoxy better.

Josh

 

[MariaRegina]

The idea of Mary being our Mother through Christ does not seem to be as explicit in EO writings. That said I have never seen it denied, it makes sense, it helps me and I do remember reading prayers or writings of some sort from an EO sourse that referred to her as Mother (not just Mother of God or Christ).

So, while the teaching is not as explicit in Orthodoxy (as far as I can see) I cannot see how she is not our Mother or how such an idea works against Orthodoxy. Rather, it helps me understand Orthodoxy better.

Josh

Amen. Amen. Amen.

Twice, Dn. Patrick has been asked to reveal his educational background and jurisdiction, but he has chosen to remain silent.

Many times in the past we members of TAW have been given sermons by so-called clergy who are not even Orthodox Christians. I think choirfiend was on staff when that happened, wasn't she?

In cases of theological disputes, it is important to listen to our own spiritual father, who has responsibility to God for our soul. And we should not have more than one spiritual father.

 

[buzuxi02]

I hope you guys don't mind a question. An online source quotes this from Bishop Kallistos Ware's book "The Orthodox Church" :


The Orthodox Church calls Mary ‘All-Holy;’ it calls her ‘immaculate’ or ‘spotless’ (in Greek, achrantos); and all Orthodox are agreed in believing that Our Lady was free from actual sin.

Here's the site:
Excerpts from the Orthodox Church by Bishop Kallistos Ware

So, is this site wrong, is the quote incorrect? Or is the statement in the book but incorrect? Or is this something where opinion has shifted over the years so some now do not believe that, and in the past all did believe it?

Thanks.

This is what Orthodox believe, what we disagree is whether this state of being is specific to some point in time. In RCC its at the moment of her conception (not before or after). This exemption of the "stain" of original sin for us would have to include death and in the case of Eve increased birth pangs ( the fathers understood the preservation of Marys virginity came from Christ in the womb and not because she was exempt at conception).

Orthodoxy rejects the belief that Mary was exempt from original sin, for she did die and we emphasize this in the Dormition. Also Orthodoxy teaches that the Virgin was from a succession of chosen and hallowed generations. The holiness of Old Israel was perpetually found in the root of Jesse and she was the rod that sprang from it. St John of Damascus describes Joachims holiness imparted to Mary thru his 'spotless seed'. Thus the previous generations of Marys lineage is not much different from her. They were alot holier than average but not neccesarily sinless.

In the writings of the Fathers we see that God imparted a special sanctitiy to Mary from the womb. But this is not something limited to Mary. It also was the case for St. John the Baptist (Lk 1.15,41), The Prophet Jeremiah (Jer 1.5) and even St Nicholas the wonderworker. There was a special divine trait but not equal to Christ's holiness and sinlessness, just surpassed the holiness of other men.

The Fathers saw a special purification of the Theotokos as one of the explanations of being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. Theodotus bishop of Ancyra was a prominent father of the 3rd ecumenical council of Ephesus, he wrote,
"If iron once joined to fire immediately expells the impurities extraneous to its nature and swiftly aquires a likeness to the powerful flame that heats it, so that it becomes untouchable and capable of setting any material on fire, how much more in a superior way, did the virgin burn when the divine fire (Holy Spirit) rushed in? She was purified from earthly impurities, and from whatever might be against her nature, and was restored to her original beauty, so as to become inaccessible , untouchable and irreconcilable to carnal things."

Isnt the iron and fire allegory a quintessential Theosis example? A gradual process to higher spiritual existence but as the bishop says in Mary it was in a "superior way". This purification at the Anunciation is enshrined in the matinal canon of the service of the Anunciation.

The restoration to her original beauty also echos the Eve-Mary parallels found in the writings of Justin Martyr on up.

But the sinless nature of Mary did not start or end there. In the services of the Church , it teaches that Christ in the womb being the only sinless one preserved her virginity inviolate. That she was freed from the travails of birth-giving which was one of the consequences of original sin. Mary was the unblemished ewe, remained so even after labor and birthgiving, she was the all-holy temple which housed God incarnate. St Irenaeous poetically describes this:

"He declared that the Logos would become flesh. He declared that the Son of God would become the Son of Man. For the Pure One opened purely that pure womb that regenrates men unto God. For He Himself made it pure."

I believe in what some posters have said, that the roman marian dogma should not be allowed to infringe on the apostolic truths (unfortunately its tough to do when ecumenism is trying to synchronize it) and let the proper Orthodox understanding shine through.

 

[Dn Patrick]

About me: I didn’t respond to the first demand for personal information because I took it not as an inquiry but as an ad hominem. (That’s also apparently how Ortho Cat took it.) But if you must know, I’m OCA, I serve at St. Nicholas Cathedral in Washington, D.C., and my bishop is Metropolitan Jonah. I’m a writer by profession. I’ve written several books on politics and religion, the most recent of which is Eight Ways to Run the Country, a peer-reviewed work of political theory published by Praeger in 2006. I am also the author of The Scandal of Gender: Early Christian Teaching on the Man and the Woman, published by Regina Orthodox Press in 1998. I have no formal education beyond a bachelors in English and the six academic papers I was required to write before ordination.

I have not talked to the Metropolitan about this and speak only for myself. In my past postings, I have not represented anything as “the” Orthodox position, except to say that the Orthodox are not Pelagians. I have not previously written on the topic or even discussed it at length before last week. It has not been a big concern of mine. I’m an ex-Prot who was catechized by an ex-RC. I was not instructed that the Theotokos was ever-sinless and was led to believe the Orthodox regarded RC Marian piety as excessive. I have rarely found Orthodox Marian piety to be excessive, but once in a while something some Orthodox does strikes me as being over the top — careless both theologically and pastorally, lacking in concern both for rightly divided words and for the effect of such carelessness on our faith. (I have already mentioned some examples.)

My entrance into this debate was occasioned by a discussion with an RC, who insisted, based on previous conversations with unknown Orthodox, that we believe just what they do about the Theotokos. Curious as to how close the Orthodox do come to the RCs on the issue, I started looking around on line and found this forum. I thought the initial brow-beating of Ortho Cat very unfair, especially the prideful dismissal that “it’s only recent converts who have trouble with such things — once you’ve been Orthodox as long we have you’ll see the light too.” (This is a characterization, not a quote.) So I weighed in, and I’m glad I did. I love a good debate, and I have indeed learned a lot. I think we’re making progress. We’ve had some very well thought-out posts on both sides lately, and I see now that we are not really that far apart in our understanding or our piety.

But there have been some things said that have caused me concern. We pray to God as “Our Father”; should we also to pray to Mary as “Our Mother”? Where are the limits to this veneration? Or is it worship? Ortho Cat has shown us, brilliantly, that our “veneration vs. worship” rhetoric often amounts to a distinction without a difference, and some of you seem indeed to honor Mary, if not as God, then at least as Demigod, more the Exception than the Example, in a category of being all her own. Where will such piety lead us in the future, coinciding with the growing influence of feminism in the world? The Theotokos is never known to have taught anyone except the child Jesus; she apparently never exercised authority over men, never preached in public, never read the Scriptures in synagogue or church, and never directed a choir, but she always covered her head. Will the Orthodox women of tomorrow follow that example? Or will the next generation, having been taught to worship “Jesus and the Panagia,” demand gender equality behind the iconostas as well as on it?

I have another concern, which I have already raised, and that’s the influence of hypertrophy on our comprehension of the Gospel. The difficulty hypertrophy presents in evangelization of Protestants is a part of the larger problem of understanding our own faith. Mary’s supposed ever-sinlessness adds nothing to that understanding and instead obscures and confuses it. It causes us to disregard the Scriptures and lose sight of the significance of Christ’s sinlessness. It raises a lot of questions that are difficult to answer and need not arise if we stuck to the Apostolic faith that “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). Ortho Cat has already provided us the passage from St. John Maximovitch, quoting St. Basil the Great, but I’ll repeat it here because I have been challenged to provide patristic support and haven’t had the time to make a thorough search: “There is none without stain before Thee, even though his life be but a day, save Thee alone, Jesus Christ our God, Who didst appear on earth without sin, and through Whom we all trust to obtain mercy and the remission of sins.” (Third Prayer of Vespers of Pentecost)

So there you have it, the faith I live by: One is holy, one is Lord, Jesus Christ — the only sinless one — to the glory of God the Father. Amen.

Dn. Patrick

 

[Kristos]

Hmmm.

Her virginity was unlike any other in history, for she was the perfect and complete virgin, the ever-virgin. St John of Damascus says in his homily on the Birth of the Theotokos that she was "ever-virgin in mind, and in soul, and in body." and later, he calls her "spotless". By virtue of this ever-virginity she was free of personal transgressions, free from the passions, execpt for death and those that the Fathers call the "natural and blameless passions" like eating. Her death, according to the acts of the Orthodox council of Jersusalem, was "not due to sins but only to the other natural causes which mankind has, being subject to corruptibility efen before sinning...She was human and subject to death." Her virginity was a condition of her whole person, not only of her body for as St John of Damascus says in his encomium on the Dormition, "She was wholly united to God...Her soul AND her body bore God".

That's not my opinion.

I had hoped that someone might want to address the Council of Jerusalem of 1672. It was signed by five Patriarchs including the MP, but seemingly in a revised form that I have not been able to read. It would seem that there are assertions being made here that contradict or at least call into questions the acts of the Council.

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

I don't see why saying Mary never sinned makes her out to be a demi-god.
Nor do I see how it provides any support for female ordination or similar phenomenon.

 

[MariaRegina]

There have been other saints who have been raised in very devout households. Consider the household in which St. Basil the Great was raised. Aren't all of his siblings saints? They testified that at an early age they remember praying and singing hymns to God so that they were inspired to avoid all sins. Since they wanted to please their parents and God, they carefully avoided any sins. Such was the life of the Ever-Virgin Theotokos too as both Saints Joachim and Anna were her parents.

Today it is harder to raise our children as saints. They play with neighborhood kids who are not godly. They go to amusement parks and witness bad things. They watch TV and movies that depict sinful actions and horrible advertisements. They eat adulterated foods laced with too much sugar and/or chemicals (artificial colorings, flavorings, and sweeteners) which cause them to feed awfully sick and then misbehave as their blood sugar rises and then dives to dangerous almost lethal levels. Then at school, they read books that are far from edifying, for example, How the Garcia Girls Lost Their Accents (read virginity).

 

[MariaRegina]

I don't see why saying Mary never sinned makes her out to be a demi-god.

Precisely.

We venerate the Theotokos and the Saints. We do not worship them.

Catholics and Orthodox Christians have no problem distinguishing the terms veneration from worship. We give Christ true worship (adoration and thanksgiving) when we offer Him praise and thanksgiving by receiving the Precious Body and Blood of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ in Holy Communion.

This is our worship song in the Orthodox Church:

We praise Thee, we bless Thee, we give thanks unto Thee, O Lord, and we pray unto Thee, O our God,

Many Protestants, on the other hand, think that those warm fuzzy feelings that cause them to swoon while they sing How Great Thou Art is an act of worship. No, that is an act of adoration, and is quite distinct from worship.

We worship in spirit and in truth every time we celebrate the Divine Liturgy and partake of the Holy Eucharist.
In fact we sing about that in the following post-communion hymn:

We have seen the True Light,
We have received the Heavenly Spirit;
We have found the True Faith,
Worshiping the undivided Trinity:
For He hath saved us.

Thus, true prayer and worship to Christ involves A-C-T-S:

A - Adoration
C - Contrition
T - Thanksgiving
S - Supplication

When we sing the Akathist or the Paraclesis to the Theotokos, we do not give adoration or thanksgiving to her. That is reserved for the Holy Trinity.

Nor do I see how it provides any support for female ordination or similar phenomenon.

I agree. In fact, it is groups like the Catholic Call to Action, who do not venerate the Theotokos, who are demanding the ordination of women to the priesthood.

Our Lady, the Most Holy Theotokos, is a stumbling block to them because the Theotokos was never chosen to be an Apostle, nor was she ordained a deacon or a priest. One could say that if the Theotokos were ordained into the rank of the clergy, then women could be ordained too. That would have set a precedent. However, no precedent was set.

 

[narnia59]

This is what Orthodox believe, what we disagree is whether this state of being is specific to some point in time. In RCC its at the moment of her conception (not before or after). This exemption of the "stain" of original sin for us would have to include death and in the case of Eve increased birth pangs ( the fathers understood the preservation of Marys virginity came from Christ in the womb and not because she was exempt at conception).

Orthodoxy rejects the belief that Mary was exempt from original sin, for she did die and we emphasize this in the Dormition. Also Orthodoxy teaches that the Virgin was from a succession of chosen and hallowed generations. The holiness of Old Israel was perpetually found in the root of Jesse and she was the rod that sprang from it. St John of Damascus describes Joachims holiness imparted to Mary thru his 'spotless seed'. Thus the previous generations of Marys lineage is not much different from her. They were alot holier than average but not neccesarily sinless.

In the writings of the Fathers we see that God imparted a special sanctitiy to Mary from the womb. But this is not something limited to Mary. It also was the case for St. John the Baptist (Lk 1.15,41), The Prophet Jeremiah (Jer 1.5) and even St Nicholas the wonderworker. There was a special divine trait but not equal to Christ's holiness and sinlessness, just surpassed the holiness of other men.

The Fathers saw a special purification of the Theotokos as one of the explanations of being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. Theodotus bishop of Ancyra was a prominent father of the 3rd ecumenical council of Ephesus, he wrote,
"If iron once joined to fire immediately expells the impurities extraneous to its nature and swiftly aquires a likeness to the powerful flame that heats it, so that it becomes untouchable and capable of setting any material on fire, how much more in a superior way, did the virgin burn when the divine fire (Holy Spirit) rushed in? She was purified from earthly impurities, and from whatever might be against her nature, and was restored to her original beauty, so as to become inaccessible , untouchable and irreconcilable to carnal things."

Isnt the iron and fire allegory a quintessential Theosis example? A gradual process to higher spiritual existence but as the bishop says in Mary it was in a "superior way". This purification at the Anunciation is enshrined in the matinal canon of the service of the Anunciation.

The restoration to her original beauty also echos the Eve-Mary parallels found in the writings of Justin Martyr on up.

But the sinless nature of Mary did not start or end there. In the services of the Church , it teaches that Christ in the womb being the only sinless one preserved her virginity inviolate. That she was freed from the travails of birth-giving which was one of the consequences of original sin. Mary was the unblemished ewe, remained so even after labor and birthgiving, she was the all-holy temple which housed God incarnate. St Irenaeous poetically describes this:

"He declared that the Logos would become flesh. He declared that the Son of God would become the Son of Man. For the Pure One opened purely that pure womb that regenrates men unto God. For He Himself made it pure."

I believe in what some posters have said, that the roman marian dogma should not be allowed to infringe on the apostolic truths (unfortunately its tough to do when ecumenism is trying to synchronize it) and let the proper Orthodox understanding shine through.

Thank you for your response.

 

[Kreikkalainen]

I will say a few words very quickly and then I'm afraid I have to duck out of this thread. I can't think very straight. Real-life issues .

Well herein lies the difficulty. Now if I said the following phrase, would it be considered to you as worship?

"To God let us run now most earnestly, we sinners all and wretched ones, and fall down in repentance calling from the depths of our souls."

That certainly sounds like worship to me. How about if I said this?

"To the Theotokos let us run now most earnestly, we sinners all and wretched ones, and fall down in repentance calling from the depths of our souls"

Now this is supposed to be veneration? The latter quote is from the supplicatory canon to the Theotokos. I think we have a double standard here. If we can't distinguish between veneration and worship by our words, then all that leaves us with is interpretation and semantics, a rather precarious manner of distinction that can be problematic and rather difficult to distinguish between. (I might even add dangerous!) Protestants who come across such a prayer or hymn accuse us of Mariolatry. Are they illogical in their thinking? They claim that certain words and phrases should be reserved for God alone. I can't say I disagree with them on the latter.

Falling down (bowing) in repentance (asking forgiveness) is what we do in front of each other in Forgiveness Vespers (once a year on Cheesefare Sunday). So in the Supplicatory Canon, we are also (verbally) doing the same in front of the Theotokos. So to me, this looks like not even veneration, just asking forgiveness.

In the Orthodox understanding of sin, when we sin, we sin against God but also we sin against all our brothers and sisters in the Church. The Theotokos and the saints are the Triumphant members of the Church, so it's not freaky or worshipful to ask forgiveness from them, in the same way and for the same reason that we ask forgiveness from each other without anyone claiming that we worship each other as god.

 

[Joshua G.]

Fr Deacon,

I respect the struggles you have and the fact that you are indeed Orthodox. But I don't think you express clear comprehension of how the Orthodox Church views Mary. Some of the things you have said concern me, but this will have to be dealt with between you and your confessor.

Joshua

 

[Kreikkalainen]

I would also say the couple of passages that you guys mentioned do not specifically talk about the Theotokos. Indeed there are several places in our services where the Lord is mentioned as e.g. "the only clean One" (pre Communion prayers) or other synonyms of "only sinless", but we need to take them into context and see what the hymnographer wanted to say in each case. E.g. in the precommunion prayer, the meaning is "I am a weak human, therefore I have sinned & I am unworthy of You, but You, the only clean One, make me worthy etc". It's about me the sinner, compared to Christ the Perfect; the Theotokos is nowhere - why should I assume that the hymnographer wanted me to deduce from his writings that the Theotokos sinned?

That passage in Romans, I looked it up very quickly, it's that part in Romans where St Paul is talking about the works of the Law vs redemption by God's Grace, isn't it. Again, it's not about the Theotokos. Sure, if you take the phrase "for all (humans) have sinned" as a mathematical proposition, then you are forced to deduce that the Theotokos sinned. But equally, the Lord also became human, so if you want to be logically consistent, then from the same phrase you would be forced to conclude that the Lord also sinned! That's of course absurd and indeed blasphemous, so I don't think I like that way of interpreting. And I don't think St Paul's intention in this passage is to teach us that the Theotokos sinned, otherwise he would have at least mentioned Her somewhere.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I will say a few words very quickly and then I'm afraid I have to duck out of this thread. I can't think very straight. Real-life issues .





Falling down (bowing) in repentance (asking forgiveness) is what we do in front of each other in Forgiveness Vespers (once a year on Cheesefare Sunday). So in the Supplicatory Canon, we are also (verbally) doing the same in front of the Theotokos. So to me, this looks like not even veneration, just asking forgiveness.

In the Orthodox understanding of sin, when we sin, we sin against God but also we sin against all our brothers and sisters in the Church. The Theotokos and the saints are the Triumphant members of the Church, so it's not freaky or worshipful to ask forgiveness from them, in the same way and for the same reason that we ask forgiveness from each other without anyone claiming that we worship each other as god.

I'm not sure that bowing is the same as falling down in this sense. When I hear "falling down" I think of what we do during the Divine Liturgy of the Elevation of the Cross; that is, prostration. I don't think there is a precedent for this practice when venerating the Theotokos in any particular service, is there?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

And I don't think St Paul's intention in this passage is to teach us that the Theotokos sinned, otherwise he would have at least mentioned Her somewhere.

St. Paul wrote what he was inspired to write, nothing more nothing less. Perhaps the reason he didn't bother to mention her is because he didn't consider her as any different than the rest of the apostles with regards to her sin status?

A biblical passage that I encountered the other day really jumped out at me with regards to this issue. Mark 3:20-30:


"20 And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread. 21 And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself. 22 And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils. 23 And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. 27 No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.
28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: 29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation. 30 Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit. 31 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. 32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. 33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? 34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother."

In vs. 21, friends here literally means "his own" or "his family". Most translations render this as "family". Also, from vs. 31 it is clear that his family were the ones being alluded to prior. Also in vs. 21, Being "beside oneself" in this sense indicates being "out of one's mind".

From this passage, is it not painfully obvious that his mother was indeed numbered among the rest of his family members who went to retrieve Him because they thought He was beside himself? Even his apostles denied him or doubted Him at one point; would it be surprising to think that his own family may have done the same?

Mark 6:4 gives us more information that would lead us to believe that they did.

4Jesus said to them, “Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor.” 5He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. 6And he was amazed at their lack of faith.

 

[MariaRegina]

Dear ortho cat:

Falling down in repentance is NOT adoration or worship.

Repentance is true contrition and sorrow for our sins. It is recognizing and acknowledging that:

• we offend Christ whenever we offend our fellow human being.
• we are sinners in need of repentance.
• we sinners must forgive each other in Christ in order to be forgiven (see the Lord's Prayer).

Monastics today make a prostration before their superiors and each other whenever they have offended a fellow monastic. As posted earlier, we Orthodox faithful make a prostration before each other begging forgiveness at Forgiveness Vespers. We are not worshiping each other. In fact, we are acknowledging Christ in each other. For when we offend each other, we offend Christ our God.

Falling down (bowing) in repentance (asking forgiveness) is what we do in front of each other in Forgiveness Vespers (once a year on Cheesefare Sunday). So in the Supplicatory Canon, we are also (verbally) doing the same in front of the Theotokos. So to me, this looks like not even veneration, just asking forgiveness.

In the Orthodox understanding of sin, when we sin, we sin against God but also we sin against all our brothers and sisters in the Church. The Theotokos and the saints are the Triumphant members of the Church, so it's not freaky or worshipful to ask forgiveness from them, in the same way and for the same reason that we ask forgiveness from each other without anyone claiming that we worship each other as god.

I would also say the couple of passages that you guys mentioned do not specifically talk about the Theotokos. Indeed there are several places in our services where the Lord is mentioned as e.g. "the only clean One" (pre Communion prayers) or other synonyms of "only sinless", but we need to take them into context and see what the hymnographer wanted to say in each case. E.g. in the precommunion prayer, the meaning is "I am a weak human, therefore I have sinned & I am unworthy of You, but You, the only clean One, make me worthy etc". It's about me the sinner, compared to Christ the Perfect; the Theotokos is nowhere - why should I assume that the hymnographer wanted me to deduce from his writings that the Theotokos sinned?

That passage in Romans, I looked it up very quickly, it's that part in Romans where St Paul is talking about the works of the Law vs redemption by God's Grace, isn't it. Again, it's not about the Theotokos. Sure, if you take the phrase "for all (humans) have sinned" as a mathematical proposition, then you are forced to deduce that the Theotokos sinned. But equally, the Lord also became human, so if you want to be logically consistent, then from the same phrase you would be forced to conclude that the Lord also sinned! That's of course absurd and indeed blasphemous, so I don't think I like that way of interpreting. And I don't think St Paul's intention in this passage is to teach us that the Theotokos sinned, otherwise he would have at least mentioned Her somewhere.

At the Feast of the Elevation of the Holy Cross, the hymn states, "We fall down in worship." We give praise and thanksgiving to Christ for offering Himself on the Cross for our salvation. We acknowledge this sacrificial act by accepting His Precious Body and Blood, which was shed on the Cross, whenever we receive Holy Communion.

Making the prostration is an act of humility (our sinfulness) and an act of supplication (our needs) before the Theotokos and the Saints who already enjoy the Presence of Christ our God. These witnesses intercede on our behalf. Making the prostration before each other is done in sorrow for our sins and in adoration of Christ who is present among us (wherever two or three are gathered in My Name).

I'm not sure that bowing is the same as falling down in this sense. When I hear "falling down" I think of what we do during the Divine Liturgy of the Elevation of the Cross; that is, prostration. I don't think there is a precedent for this practice when venerating the Theotokos in any particular service, is there?

 

[Kreikkalainen]

I have seen people falling down to ask forgiveness from others in Forgiveness Sunday in the same way that we fall down on the day of the Elevation of the Cross & I didn't think they were worshipping each other. I assumed they had some serious row at some point and they felt they would reconcile better if they humbled themselves by falling down in front of each other like that.

Some 20 years ago that I visited the Holy Mountain, in one of the monasteries after dinner a monk fell down on his knees in the entrance to the trapeza & asked forgiveness for a transgression, in turns from all the brotherhood and all pilgrims (including me), as we were exiting the trapeza. I didn't think he was worshiping me.

The two gestures of bowing and falling are also known in the Church as little metanoia (bowing) & big metanoia (falling). Metanoia = repentance.

I could check the original prayer and see what word is translated as "falling down", but I can't do that right now, sorry.

I did say I have real life issues and have to get out of time-consuming threads here... you just wrote another passage. OK, it'll take a few days for me to put my mind together, set down some time, read the passage in my language & comment... I'll still try to find the time & willpower to do it.