**1. Introduction**

A point of agreement between Orthodox and Protestants is the Christological basis of the understanding of Virgin Mary as *Theotokos*. As long as "Mariology is an extension of Christology" (Ware 1997, p. 258) both have a common ground for dialogue and accord. There are, however, several other aspects related to the Orthodox understanding of the Virgin's role in the divine economy that raise concerns and in some cases even cause for strong disagreement. One such aspect is what we may call "a synergistic anthropology" which, for many Orthodox theologians, is supported by their understanding of Mary's designation as *Panagia*, the All-Holy one. So, Kallistos Ware (1997) comments that the Orthodox Christians honor Mary not only because she is *Theotokos*, but also because she is *Panagia*. As such, "she is the supreme example of synergy or co-operation between the purpose of the deity and human freedom" (ibid.). Staniloae explains further that "she was able, through her purity, to bring a contribution to the Incarnation of the Son of God as man" (Staniloae 2013, p. 68), as she alone actualized a power that God planted from the beginning in humans to fight against sin. The divine economy for the Incarnation therefore "is not a unilateral one" (Lossky 1974, p. 202). Mary is the "summit" of a long process of Old Testament holiness as Wisdom "was building her house" through the generations of the Old Testament righteous men (ibid.). Through her purity the Word of God will become incarnate as "alongside the incarnate divine hypostasis there is a deified human hypostasis" (ibid., p. 208). A really intriguing observation is that all three theologians we have quoted above make reference to Cabasilas' three Mariological homilies in order to support their understanding of Mary as the supreme example of synergy between God and humans in the process of salvation.

A more detailed exposition of the theme of synergy, as it relates to the Holy Virgin, can be found in Tsirpanlis' article on the Mariology of Nicholas Cabasilas (Tsirpanlis 1979). In his analysis, Tsirpanlis expounds Cabasilas' Mariological homilies underlining therein the centrality of the concept of synergy. Specifically, he finds that Mary's achievement is presented "as an optimistic message and source of power, blessing and joy to anyone who struggles for *theosis* or divinization, i.e., restoration of the original human nature and its union with God." (ibid., p. 89). He explains further, that this teaching is part of a broader theological project that took place during the time of late Byzantine Christianity, a project he calls "Mariocentric humanism and anthropocentric Christology" (ibid.). In

**Citation:** Kantartzis, Panagiotis. 2021. Mariology, Anthropology, Synergy and Grace: Why Is Luther So Far Apart from Cabasilas? *Religions* 12: 343. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/rel12050343


Academic Editors: Bradley Nassif and Tim Grass

Received: 18 March 2021 Accepted: 8 May 2021 Published: 13 May 2021

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

a recent article Nicholaos Loudovikos makes the same point, proposing that Cabasilas' homilies present us with what he calls "Hesychastic Mariological Humanism", which has at its center the concept of synergy. Loudovikos quotes Cabasilas' statement from his homily *On the Theotokos' Birth* where he writes that Mary "helped God to show his goodness" and makes the comment, "here we see this deep understanding of synergy ... based precisely upon the integrity of the divine image in man, an image which is precisely *freedom*." (Loudovikos 2016, p. 65). Both Loudovikos and Tsirpanlis follow Nellas (2010, pp. 13, 34) emphatic claim that Cabasilas' Mariology is a theological response aiming to address the rise of western humanism. Cabasilas' work understood against the background of the autonomous anthropology formulated in the West is considered, therefore, to be the counterproposal of an alternative, theocentric humanism in which humanity is glorified by the concepts of participation in God and synergy with God. For all these theologians therefore, in Mariology, especially as it is expressed in Cabasilas, we find "an anthropological *Leitmotif* " (Lossky 1974, p. 195), an affirmation of human capacity through the notion of synergy.

Martin Luther comes onto the scene almost two centuries after Cabasilas in a context quite different to the late Byzantine period. Nevertheless, it can be argued that he operates within the same philosophical milieu as Cabasilas. For example, Luther's first written work was a commentary on Lombard's *Sentences*. Interestingly enough, we have good reason to believe that Cabasilas knew and used this work in his own theological reflection (Kappes 2017) 1. Notger Slenczka (2014) notes that Luther develops his anthropology against the background of classical scholastic humanism (Robert Kolb 2009, pp. 24–25, 37–39, 77, 95; Janz 2015; Oberman 1963) in much the same way as we have already seen that Cabasilas does his. Luther's anthropological thought is systematically presented in his *Disputatio de homine* (Luther 1960, pp. 137–44). The first set of theses (theses 1–19) of this work concern insights into the meaning of humanity as provided by philosophy. In the rest of the theses (theses 20–40) he provides a theological response and definition of the meaning of being human. Two of them are of extreme importance. Thesis 24 argues that even the most beautiful and magnificent thing, namely reason, "lies under sin and in the devil's power". On the basis of that he argues in thesis 32 that "the human being is justified by faith". This is the central and comprehensive definition of being human. On account of it, every human being is a sinner apart from justification (theses 33–34). Justification is not understood, therefore, as a human activity but as something that God does to humans. Luther's anthropology therefore can be called an anthropology of grace. One of the best places to see this insight applied is in his commentary on the *Magnificat*. In it Mary is understood as "the foremost example of the grace of God" (Luther 1956, p. 323).

It is interesting therefore to study Cabasilas' Mariological homilies and Luther's commentary on the Magnificat in order to attempt to understand how these two theologians responded to the challenge of humanism, with special reference to the role of Mary, and yet they drew such different conclusions. Cabasilas presents Mary as the prime example of his anthropology of synergy, whereas Luther as the supreme example of grace. Why then is Luther so far apart from Cabasilas?

#### **2. Cabasilas' Mariological Homilies**

In what follows we shall summarize Cabasilas' Mariological thought as it is expressed in his three homilies: *On the (Theotokos') Birth*, *On the Annunciation*, and *On the Dormition* (Nellas 2010). For Cabasilas, man was created and endowed with power against sin. This power, though, must be activated. He writes, "That is why it is absolutely necessary to believe that God has placed in our nature the power to deal with every sin and has commanded us to turn this power into action." (*On the Birth*, p. 61) Tragically, humanity failed, for though the power against sinning "existed in their nature and was in everyone ... they did not use this power, nor was there anyone who lived without sin" (pp. 63–64). This "disease" has spread to humanity and has prevailed to the extent that "everyone's nature is wicked" (64). Man was affected by sin to such an extent that he "was obscure

(invisible, non-manifest), though he existed in myriads of human bodies" (ibid.). The Holy Virgin though, "through her love (σρω*ς*) of God, the power of her thought, the straightforwardness of her will and the greatness of her spirit" (Loudovikos, p. 632/*On the Birth*, p. 66) drove away all sin and won a trophy such as cannot be compared to anything else. "This way, she uncovered the true human nature as it was originally created ... " (Tsirpanlis 1979, p. 93). She was and she will be "the only human being who preserved the image of God entirely spotless and embodied the ideal humanity" (Tsirpanlis 1979, p. 93).

The key question then becomes, "how could the Virgin alone escape the common disease, being just human and without receiving anything more than other men?" (Tsirpanlis 1979). His wonder is such that Cabasilas repeats the question, "how could she do it?" (ibid.). Once again, "what, then was the cause of the Virgin's victory?" (ibid., p. 70) The answer is that she accomplished it "only by herself and with the weapons that God has given to all men for the fight of virtue" (74). Through her strife and sanctity she "attracted (God's) grace" ('κα*ι*´ τ*η*´ν χ*α*´ριν εϥ λκυσεν') (72). Grace is explained as "power against sin" (ibid.) and is given to her as the divine response to what she had already achieved through her effort. The Holy Virgin therefore becomes God's co-worker and helper. She is the "helper of the creator" in the act of the re-creation of broken humanity (104) and as Eve was Adam's helper, so the Virgin "helped God to show his goodness" (ibid.). She was not simply an "instrument" that God used to accomplish His purpose, but His co-worker ('συνεργó*ς*') (106).

One may argue, therefore, that Cabasilas presents us with a Godward humanism, which has the concept of synergy at its center and the Holy Virgin as its prime exemplar and paradigm. Indeed, we read that through her example and achievement "she opened the door of holiness to others by being properly prepared to receive the Savior ... ." (*On the Dormition*, Nellas 2010, pp. 186−87). The Blessed Virgin "is the *par excellence* first man (in the sense of ideal and original manhood) since she alone fully realized the divine ideal in human nature" (Tsirpanlis 1979, p. 91/*On the Birth*, p. 56).

A closer look, however, presents us with a much more complex picture.3 For example, paying closer attention to one of the passages that we have already mentioned we note that Cabasilas claims that the Holy Virgin was the only one who preserved the purity of human nature not only among those who have come in the past ('μóνη των γεν oμ*ε*´νων'), but also those who will come in the future ('και τ` ων σπειτ' εσ` oμ*ε*´νων ανθρ ` *ω*´ πων') (*On the Birth*, Nellas 2010, p. 68). In other words, she is not only the first but also the only one who managed to purify herself by actualizing the power given to humanity against sin. Cabasilas explains further, "besides her, from all the rest there is in none 'pure from impurity' as the prophet said" (ibid.). Mary stands, therefore, as a unique exception to what is otherwise the common inescapable human condition. This human condition is portrayed as that of a body that has been so completely destroyed by disease that there is "nothing left, so the one who wants to cure that body cannot do anything to restore health to it." (*On the Dormition*, Nellas 2010, p. 173) Therefore, in the eyes of God, "all human righteousness is, according to the Bible, more vile than any abomination, and it is called wickedness" (171). Thus, "because, we the people, after we lost because of the fall the happiness for which we were created, we have been craving it unceasingly ever since. But none of the angels or the humans had the power to offer it to us again. And we kept getting worse, so it's impossible to get back to our original state." (164)

Mary, therefore, is the only exception to that common human fate, something that makes one wonder whether her exception tells us anything at all about humanity or whether it is mostly about her and her unique role in the divine economy. In other words, the emphasis is not so much on Mary's example as on Mary's exception (*On the Birth*, Nellas 2010, p. 108). Thus it appears that what we have in these homilies is not so much anthropology but perhaps a primitive, embryonic sophiological Mariology. By this, of course, I refer to Bulgakov's sophiological Mariology (Bulgakov 2002, 2009) and I purport that it provides us with a key to understanding Cabasilas' thought. We need to clarify that we do not imply that there is a direct link between the two but that one may discern

an elective affinity4. In other words, in a similar way to Bulgakov's, Cabasilas views the Theotokos not as a typical human being but as one which stands in the realm of the "in-between": God and man, heaven and earth, the uncreated and the created. In a characteristic passage, Cabasilas declares that, "the Virgin not only did she heralded God, but she also manifested to humanity the enhypostasized wisdom of God ('ενυπ ` óστατoν τoυ- Θεoυ σ oϕ*ι*´αν') not in signs or images but in an immanent way God himself" (*On the Dormition*, Nellas 2010, p. 190). She is human but she is also the "alight ray" ('αϕιγμ ` ενη ` *ς* ακτ ` ινo*ς*') (*On the Birth*, Nellas 2010, p. 88) which comes to earth. As the sun sheds its light making the beauty of the objects visible without participating in their nature, so the Virgin does with humans (*On the Dormition*, Nellas 2010, p. 174). The Blessed Virgin becomes the "heaven of heavens", an appellation reserved for God only (*On the Dormition*, Nellas 2010, p. 170). Therefore, the Holy Mother "stands in between God and humans" (ibid., p. 168). She is human, but at the same time, "her exceptional virtue" makes her only on a par with God (*On the Dormition*, Nellas 2010, p. 178). Her righteousness was not "within the human realm" but not only as matter of degree for she has "altered our common nature" in such a way that made it impossible to measure the distance. As a result of her accomplishment and virtue, she stands between God and humanity (ibid.). She is "the comforter on our behalf in the presence of God, even before the arrival of the Comforter" (*On the Annunciation*, Nellas 2010, p. 118).

The Holy Virgin time and again is presented to us not as an example of what we should or could do ourselves but as acting "on our behalf" ('υπ´ *ε*´ρ') and "in our place" ('αντ ` *ι*´') (*On the Dormition*, p. 174). She offers her righteousness "for the sake of" ('υπ´ *ε*´ρ') the world and in this way she "justifies" everyone, which is something that Cabasilas admits that Paul said of the Savior. Jesus Christ, the Savior, is the "source" (or cause—αϥ τιo*ς*) of our sanctity but the Holy Virgin is the "fellow-source" (συναιτι ` o*ς*) (ibid. 206). Of course, one may wonder whether this expression and others like it are to be understood as a hyperbole in the context of a laudatory homily. Is it simply an elevated way of speaking with the intention to underline her role as the medium through which the Savior came and worked for our salvation?<sup>5</sup> It is interesting to see how Cabasilas finishes the sentence quoted above; the Holy Virgin is the "fellow-source" of our sanctification as we receive "through her" (δι*α*´ σoυ-) what Jesus has to offer but also because of what she has to contribute (των σ ων- ). Therefore, it should not surprise us that he considers her "on par with the great victim" (that is Jesus Christ) since "she on her own destroyed the enmity and opened heaven" (*On the Birth*, p. 73).

Having contested the scholarly consensus which considers the Mariological homilies as a source of theological anthropology, we continue to affirm "the principle of synergy" (Nellas 110) as central in all three homilies. Mary's achievement is based on and is explained by the logic of synergy. The "law of divine righteousness" is that God gives his benefactions not to all but to those "who have contributed to what leads to their consummation ('συντ*ε*´λεια')" (*On the Dormition*, p. 176). Fulfilling this law, Mary "attracted" God through her "immaculate life, pure walk, refusal of all evil, exercise in every virtue, having a soul purer than light, a spiritual body brighter than the sun, impeccable than the heavens and more sacred than the thrones of the cherubim. Her mind flies fearless of any hight, better than the angels' wings. She is full of Divine eros which consummated any other desire of the soul". Because of that life of virtue she reached "possession of God" ('Θεoυ- κατoχ*η*´') and "coition with God" ("Θεoυ συν oυσ*ι*´α") (*On the Annunciation*, p. 116). God, in His work of redemption, takes the Virgin as "participant" (κoινωνóν) to his decision (ibid., p. 126) and "helper" ('βoηθóν') in His manifestation of His goodness (*On the Birth*, p. 108).
