|
Dogma and authority in the Church
Introduction
by His Eminence Archbishop Stylianos
In our evil age which "demythologises" every institution
and every notion of established authority under the pretext
of course of democratic equality and "enlightenment" which
from the outset claims that rational thought has absolute
power over all that can be known - the notions of "dogma"
and ''authority" are now considered by many to be not only
inappropriate to our time and place, but also extremely
provocative and even demeaning of the dignity of the human
being emancipated long ago. Thus to speak today of dogma as
a common and indeed regulatory point of reference for the
entire people of God - especially in the strict sense of a
certain supernatural authority - constitutes no doubt a
great scandal, or at any rate a bold demand which
continuously needs new justification before all who "ask for
a reason for the hope that is in you" (Peter 3:15).
In responding to this need and the doubts of those who in
any way may have a contrary opinion, an attempt will be made
to present the main things that could possibly be said on
this issue, from the viewpoint of Orthodox systematic
theology, during these historic times, so as to facilitate a
fruitful and sincere dialogue with any person of
goodwill.
First of all. it can be said that dogma and authority are
considered to be notions which of themselves relate to each
other as cause and causality, since authority is understood
as being the power which dogma produces and directs, while
dogma expresses sufficiently the nature of the authority
from which it is derived. This last observation, namely that
dogma expresses "sufficiently" the nature of the authority
from which it comes without completely exhausting its
content, and therefore without being completely identified
with it, constitutes the fundamental condition for a
successful characterisation of the essence of dogma, as
shall be seen below.
Within the area of the Church, matters of course become
more complicated. For, therein, dogma is not a notion which
has a unified and unchangeably single meaning. Nor is
authority understood as a compulsive force or as blind
oppression. For a precise and fair evaluation of these two
basic concepts it is imperative that a more thorough
analysis be made of each by every impartial and thinking
person of today, even if that person is not one who believes
in Christ. Let us not forget that many sociologists and
historians have for some time spoken about a
"post-Christian" period in which Christians already
live.
[Back to top]
|
The different notions of the term dogma
The term dogma (from the verb 'doko' meaning "I think"),
is known to be of pre-Christian origin. It expressed a
binding decision or clause which was ethico-philosophical or
socio-political in character. Its validity depended directly
upon the trustworthiness and competence of the authority
which pronounced it, for which reason it was connected to it
(e.g., a particular philosopher or lawgiver, a philosophical
or religious community, a state government etc). With the
introduction of the term into the vocabulary and life of the
Christian Church, its meaning became richer, as we shall
see, and this gradually developed significant
differentiation(1). These differentiation were
sometimes so greatly influenced by others that the formation
of a totally new term became justified, which in turn
expressed something almost entirely different.
At least four clearly distinct shades of meaning and uses
of the word dogma can be highlighted in Christianity. These
were not of course parallel to each other, but for
historical or psychological reasons they arose and developed
over time. Today they are an unquestionable reality which
can cause the unwary considerable confusion.
First meaning
The first and most fundamental meaning of dogma is of
course mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, in the
description of the Apostolic Synod which was called to
decree "the decisions ['dogmata'] that had been
reached by the Apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem"
(Acts 16:4). The vital designation "reached" is highly
indicative of the essence of dogma, as the point of
crystallisation where two things meet: on the one hand the
will of God who is revealed and, on the other hand, even if
its importance is secondary, the conscience of the person
being saved in the context of "obedience to the faith" (Rom.
1:5). We shall see below that this "Divine- human" feature
of the essence of dogma is a 'conditio sine qua non' for the
Orthodox understanding of salvation which is expressed at
length in the teaching of the Church concerning synergy.
Dogma signifies, then, a generally accepted teaching
"decreed" by the leaders of the Christian community, under
the guidance of the Holy Spirit who, according to the Lord's
promise, abides forever in the Church, leading her "unto all
truth" (John 16: 13). This is evident in the constant
conviction and direct reference made to the Divine factor by
the presiding leaders, through the well known phrase "it
seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us". When posed in the
plural, dogma means the individual and axiomatic truths of
the Christian faith, the so-called "articles of faith"
which, when connected as a single organic whole, comprise
the complete conscience of the Church. Yet, in saying the
"conscience of the Church", we must always keep in mind that
this is the "memory of the Church"(2),
which is not a product of time, unlike "ecclesiastical
conscience" that is nothing other than the reflection of the
teaching of the Church in the conscience of the individual
faithful person(3). The memory of the Church is a
stable and constant spiritual dynamic which is unceasingly
maintained by the divine Logos who "inseparably" and
"without division" became human, and the Comforter who
remains eternally within her.
It is clear that the memory and conscience of the Church
includes and maintains everything that God was pleased to
reveal to humankind for its salvation. Whatever bears no
relation to eternal life and salvation cannot be accurately
described as an article of faith. The truths revealed by God
to humanity are generally referred to in three
categories:
- concerning the uncreated God
(theology);
- concerning the created world (cosmology); and
- concerning the relationship of the created and the
uncreated (Soteriology).
The sum total of these salvific truths is described in
the New Testament as the faith which is "entrusted" (1 Tim.
6:20), thereby clearly showing that what is involved is not
just chance, conventional or temporary knowledge, but rather
a unique, firm and invincible treasure. This is maintained
by God in the Church as a deposit out of extreme love for
humankind, for the salvation of all who believe. The fact
that this invaluable and irreplaceable treasure cannot be
defined and described in the form of a complete
"codification" is quite obvious, especially since the
Apostle Paul himself states that in this life "we know in
part and prophesy in part" (1 Cor. 13:9).
The divinely inspired summary of this treasure is found
in the Nicene Creed, so that the faithful may discern
between "old wives' tales" (l Tim. 4:7), "philosophy and
empty deceit" (Col. 2:8) and even between truths which are
useful in this world, but which are of no significance in
terms of our salvation. The articles contained in the Creed
present the major dogmas of the Church which, when studied
properly by the theologising Church in their organic
relationship and correct cohesion, can be further divided
into axiomatic and individual truths. They are fixed
articles of faith,whether they are presuppositions or
consequences of the central dogmas(4).
From what has already been said, a distinct
differentiation between the notion of dogma becomes
apparent. On the one hand, we have the self-evident truths
which are seminal and given directly through Divine
revelation, while on the other hand there are the inferred
or derivative axiomatic positions. In spite of this, when we
speak about the dogmas of the Church, we maintain the same
indiscriminate perception of them, knowing that our
orthodoxy and orthopraxy depend upon them, and that,
together, they guarantee our spiritual salvation. For this
reason, the Church which tends the flock teaches the general
dogmas on a daily basis and edifies the people of God, not
only with formal words of instruction and related sermons,
but also through all homologous pastoral acts, which as a
matter of course, infinitely surpass any oratorical
capabilities.
That which may at first glance appear to be merely an
abstract and theoretical truth under the term "dogma" is
similarly embodied in a certain time and place among the
people of God as a "shape" and "form" of expression in all
aspects of life, whether as a "way of thinking", "logos and
praxis", "custom and character" or as a "way of life" in
general. It is clear then that, with such a spectrum of
expressions in the Church, dogma is declared and confessed
even through silence or through perseverance in martyrdom,
whereupon it becomes the most eloquent witness to the faith.
If dogma were not embodied each time, in the manner that the
invisible God became incarnate, the treasure of faith would
then appear to be a monophysitic phenomenon, a venerable
relic in the archives of the Church, an empty shell, a
sterile form and dead letter, rather than a useful and
transforming breath of life. Yet such a stripping down would
no doubt be a cheapening of that which one devoutly
theologises and believes with St Paul, namely that the word
of God remains forever "living and powerful, and sharper
than a two edged sword" (Heb. 4:12).
Second meaning
There is another more specialised meaning of the term
"dogma" which refers not to all the truths of the faith
which are constantly preached and testified to with all
available means in the Church, but only to the most central
truths which were triumphantly and officially formulated by
the Synods of the Church in well-known "definitions',
precisely because these were misunderstood or misconstrued
by "other teachings". These dogmatic statements of the
Church have, typically at least, greater authority as the
direct and undisputed voice of the Synod which officially
expresses the conscience of the Church. However, as the
triumphant character of the formulations may impress us, we
may at times unfortunately overlook - or not understand at
all- another most important fact. Namely, that the
formulations of the teachings of the Church made by the
Synods may in some sense be "inferior" to the unofficial and
daily teaching which, as has already been mentioned, is
declared "in many and varied ways". For while the
formulation of the Synod defines the "limits" -beyond which
there is the implacable "anathema"- it is by its very nature
polemical, antithetical and exclusive in terms of opposing
views or explicit doubts. Conversely, daily pastoral
teaching which is conducted unofficially and with
"simplicity of heart" (Acts 2:46), so to speak, has
apparently a more comprehensive and inclusive character. It
is more philanthropic as it is directed towards all with
loving care and attention, without excluding anybody, at
least in the initial stages.
While the Synodical decrees contain selectively only that
portion of the truth which must be promoted and imposed - by
way of phrases which more or less have a logical coherence -
in order to prevent deviation and encourage correction,
everyday pastoral instruction is not confined or
predetermined by such guidelines. Therefore, it is not
pressured in terms of language or time, which enables it to
come back to the same topic from a new angle and with more
suitable terminology, thereby approaching more mystically,
we could say, the truth of faith which is received in
mystery and which is ineffable in essence(5).
Unless this most significant, but often hidden, parameter of
the reception of the Divine word of revelation is properly
appreciated, there is always the very serious danger that
theology might become an undertaking of rational thought
alone, a philosophical rather than a mystic
quest(6). On the other hand, if we keep this
important "difference" in mind, we will then be in a better
position to successfully overcome temptations of "the tree
of knowledge of good and evil" (Gen. 2:17), so that in this
also the words of the greatest of theologians, the Apostle
Paul. may be maintained in full honour and validity: "we
have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellence
of the power may be of God and not of us" (2 Cor. 4:7).
The Orthodox theologian must remember the first and
primary function which the "Decrees" of the Ecumenical
Synods or Councils must have and retain for all time. This
is so that their protective character does not become
misunderstood and degenerate into an irreverent absolutism
of that which is relative, in which case it would be the
worst form of idolatry. The "Decrees" signify a -setting of
boundaries" or an intellectual "enclosure", so that the mind
may not go beyond certain boundaries, but rather be guided
on the true path where living waters are found. This
directive arrow only possesses an inalienable sacredness and
binding character for the faithful - whether individually or
as a whole - if it does not become a restraint or an
obstacle for a deeper insight into the sacred words of
revelation which, day and night, constitute the first
concern of the faithful, a search for divine mercy through a
turning towards God, as is expressed most characteristically
in the funeral service: "I am yours, save me, for I have
searched out your righteous ways".
One could of course object that, in comparing the
Synodical "Decrees" with the unofficial pastoral teaching,
the former are the result of Synodical deliberations and
decisions, and therefore have a collective character which
guarantees the presence and guidance of the Paraclete (cf.
Mat. 18:20). The latter, however, exercised normally by only
one person - regardless of whether that person is a Bishop-
does not offer the same guarantee of an infallible operation
and correct teaching which is guided from above.
This objection at first sight appears indeed to be fair
and strong. Yet, if we consider it more soberly and
maturely, we shall see that here too great caution is
required so that we do not make absolute what are essential
relative positions, which at any rate are only valid under
certain conditions. It must not be forgotten that, if it is
true that one person - even a Bishop- can easily go astray
while teaching the truths of the faith, it is not impossible
or improbable for an entire Synod to be similarly led astray
in the same task, since it did not wish to leave itself
unreservedly to the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit,
unaffected by ulterior motives and human weaknesses which
historically led even to the so-called "Robbers Synods".
Furthermore, it is impossible to say in advance what the
quality and outcome of a certain Synod will be, since this
is always evaluated with hindsight and with the same
criterion used for evaluating the teaching of each
pastor(7). Therefore, in teaching the truths of
the faith, the individual person is able to have the same
assistance from above to believe correctly, if he or she in
good conscience struggles to remain in undisturbed communion
and spiritual accord with the body of the Church, and
especially with the 'phronema' of the Church
Fathers ('consensus patrum'). In the final analysis,
we must admit that, in this instance also, the motivating
force is not the human factor, regardless of the number of
people, but rather the assistance which comes from the
Paraclete, which is in accordance with the purity and
clarity of one's 'phronema'. That is why it is said
and believed in the Church that "the Spirit blows where it
chooses" (John 3:8).
Just as the "Law" in the entire Divine Economy was "our
tutor to bring us unto Christ" (Gal. 3:24), and is never
destroyed, not even by the Lord Himself who stated that "I
have not come to destroy but to fulfil" (Mat. 5:17), so it
is that the "Decrees" of the Ecumenical Councils always
remain in absolute honour and validity. This does not mean
that they exhaust the truth, just us Law does not exhaust
Grace, nor is it absolutely identified with
it(8).
Unless we accept this relationship between regular and
constant teaching on the one hand, and the irregular
formation of dogma in the Church on the other, we shall
certainly do an injustice and seriously distort both these
expressions of the gifts and illumination of the Paraclete.
The fundamental notion of communion in the Holy Spirit,
which we nonetheless never cease to request in the Divine
Liturgy, would also be corrupted. It is a liturgical
exhortation which recapitulates every other petition:
"Having asked for the unity of the faith and the communion
of the Holy Spirit, let us commend ourselves and one another
and our whole life to Christ our God" (Litany of the Divine
Liturgy).
In order to make the deep and organic relationship
between these two ways of teaching and maintaining dogma in
the Church even more lucid, we shall take a simple example
from everyday life. Just as streetlights which are put in
place by councils in order that the streets may he lit up
and safe to walk in during the dark (streets which the
councils themselves had already made for the benefit of
local residents) cannot overshadow or degrade the value of
those streets which were made before the streetlights, so it
is that the dogmatic truths formulated in Synodical Decrees
cannot and should not in any way overshadow the truths of
the word of God which are sown in the daily teaching of the
Church for the sanctification and salvation of the
world.
Third meaning
We now come to the third meaning of the term dogma.
Through regular and continuous study, teaching and
experience of the word of God, it is obvious that, according
to the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the needs of each moment
in time, newer details or aspects of the unchanging and
revealed Divine will are constantly placed before the
faithful. They allow it to be recognisable, applicable and
effective in every historical period of the Divine
Economy.
For example, the Trinitarian dogma is first of all what
the Church teaches about the Trinitarian God in Scripture,
the Creed and the related Synodical Decrees. Yet this dogma
is characterised by the entire corpus of theological works
which, strictly speaking, is not completed or closed by the
mentioned, and absolutely binding factors. On the contrary,
it is nourished and continuously enriched by them, such that
the study of the Trinitarian dogma will not finish until the
end of time, as more dissertations are added to the existing
bibliography. In the broader context of the perpetual
theological task of the Church, there are included also the
so-called "theologoumena", namely theological
opinions. These present nothing which is at first glance
reprehensible, yet they do not have the maturity or
attestation that would allow them to be considered, without
any risk or hesitation, as being the official position of
the Church on any particular issue.
This dynamic feature of the "knowledge of God" for the
theologian was alluded to by the Lord when he requested from
the Father "eternal life" for His disciples, not as a
momentary conquest that occurs once, but as a continuously
increasing process of initiation and sanctification: "This
is eternal life. that they may know you, the only true God,
and Jesus Christ whom you have sent" (John 17:3). The Greek
form of the verb know in this passage does not
indicate an automatic and momentary knowledge, but rather
something that is continuous and progressive until we all
reach "the knowledge of Your unapproachable glory" (Prayer
of the Compline service).
In summarising the three meanings of the term dogma
mentioned so far, the four following points may be stated.
Firstly, dogmas are all the truths which are taught by the
Church in "various times and in different ways" (Heb. 1:1)
and which are necessary for the salvation of all people.
These may include truths which were not officially declared
as dogma in Synods, either because of their great number or
because there was not sufficient reason to do this.
Secondly, dogmas are the truths of the faith which are
extraordinarily formed, being dependent upon relevant
"Decrees" of Ecumenical Councils and which are safeguarded
continuously. Having clashed in any way whatsoever with
fallen human logic, they met with objections and animosity
either inside or outside the Church, and their formulation
had to therefore oppose or reprove contrary beliefs in order
to safeguard the integrity of the faith and the salvation of
souls. Thirdly, dogmas are the areas of specialisation
within the theological task of the Church which. as special
sections of Orthodox Dogmatics, present the theological
issues of each of them. A fourth and entirely different
meaning and use of the term dogma is used in modern Greek,
particularly in the framework of the ecumenical movement, as
a substitute for the word "denomination".
[Back to top]
|
The sacred authority and Theanthropic validity of dogma
In an attempt to promote properly and constructively the
sacredness and the inviolate character of dogma in the midst
of the general instability and questioning of the world's
values. we often speak of the authenticity and validity of
dogma, unthinkingly using these two terms in the same sense,
almost as if they were synonyms. Careful study shows
that this is a grave error which testifies to an
unacceptable confusion of meanings that leads in turn to a
gross inaccuracy of expression. This verbal recklessness
unfortunately goes beyond formal terminology. Greater damage
is caused by the fact that such inaccuracy seriously
obstructs the correct understanding of the deeper essence of
dogma which -as has been already stated and as shall be
shown below in more detail- lies in its Theanthropic
character.
To avoid fatal confusion, then, we must distinguish
between the meanings of "authority" and "validity" by
carefully examining the precise content of each. When
speaking of "authority", we do not mean of course the moral
force and binding character of dogma, but rather the
"fatherhood" and "source" from where the truth which becomes
dogma emanates. This is more easily understood if we
consider the corresponding Latin termauctorirtas
which refers more directly to the notion of fatherhood.
In these terms, it is clear why "authority" is identified
only with the Divine factor(9). On the one hand,
because the truth of faith was given from above "once and
for all to the saints" (Jude 1:3) and, on the other, because
any subsequent development of these truths in the conscience
of the faithful, expressed as a conscientious teaching and
theology, continues to be accompanied always by the
extraordinary attributes of faith. These prevent it from
becoming assimilated, or even compared with, any form of
merely rational knowledge.
Having established from what has been said the main
meaning of the "authority" of dogma, as its transcendent
starting point and source, we can now recognise more easily
and unhesitatingly that it is natural to infer the moral and
religious power and binding character of dogma for the
faithful, as a product and secondary notion of "authority"
which is very close to the notion of "validity". If,
however, this notion of "validity" stems from the
transcendent origin and source of dogma - to which its
strength and sacredness can be mainly attributed- then both
the nature of the truths of faith as well as the nature of
the human person nonetheless compel us to acknowledge the
moral contribution of the human factor also in the
manifestation and consolidation of the validity of dogma.
Being in the salvific, theandric or Divine human form, the
human factor does not even remain neutral in the
extraordinary process of irregular revelation, nor in the
subsequent task of sanctification and eternal salvation
towards which this aims.
In analysing the theandric nature understood in the light
of the nature of the truths of the faith, namely the
"synergy" of the Divine and human factors in the original
manifestation as well as the further formulation of dogma,
we mean that the truths of Divine revelation are salvific
principles of life, not simply neutral educational material.
This is precisely because the human person is called in
freedom to acknowledge and confess that such principles come
from the God who speaks, and then to live responsibly
according to them so that he or she may receive salvation in
Christ. This is the main reason why the faithful must be
ready at every moment to sacrifice if necessary even their
God-given and unique gift of life for the sake of the truth
of the faith (martyrs-new martyrs). This would otherwise
rightfully be considered as the greatest sin in the world,
equal to suicide for which the Church refuses to give a
funeral service, despite pressure to the contrary from
social movements of recent times, and despite the fact that
such a ruling does not apply even to the hardest
criminal(10).
That this synergy between the human and the divine is
implied by the nature of the human person is clearly obvious
given the fact that only in freedom and in the related
degree of responsibility is the human person realised and
developed until the very last breath. For, the nature of the
person is by definition "ecstatic" which, according to the
etymology of this term in Greek, means to "go out of one's
self"(11).
From the viewpoint of the Divine and human factors alone,
it is possible to evaluate correctly the importance of the
following vital ecclesiological realities at least. It is on
the basis of these realities that the human-Divine validity
of dogma is based and, through these, it is uninterruptedly
maintained from generation to generation. these realities
are: (a) the Divine inspiration of Holy Scripture; (b) the
infallibility of the Church; (c) Apostolic succession; (d)
worship and popular piety in general; and (e) the blood of
the martyrs shed for the faith.
Not one of these great ecclesiological realities could
possibly be studied or correctly interpreted as a phenomenon
which has an inspiration and inclination purely from on
high, monophysitically. It has more to do with an essential
synergy of the Divine and human factors in the full scope
and depth of these functions in the life of the Church. It
is therefore imperative that we develop these ideas here.
The first two truths (a) and (b) require no further
explanation, other than what Orthodoxy teaches today in its
dogmatic manuals in response to other denominations,
especially from the middle of this century. when with God's
blessing, a Patristic renewal commenced. Indeed, as a
result, it is now possible for fundamental dogmatic truths
to be sensitively reformulated in theological language which
is more genuinely Orthodox. Previously the Orthodox
themselves had used a language which belonged rather to
scholastic theology or to irreverent rationalism, since most
of their theologians had more or less been unconsciously
influenced by western universities where postgraduate
studies were undertaken.
At this point it should be said very briefly that those
things which relate to the Divine inspiration of Holy
Scripture in general, despite the honest efforts up until
now to state the axiomatic Orthodox positions and the proper
hermeneutical criteria of most Orthodox biblical scholars,
have not yet been presented in such a dynamic theological
synthesis that they can be counted rightfully and equally
among the wonders of God's love which occur according to
Divine economy in each historical period. We only hint at
these, mainly in worship services, when we exclaim: "God is
wonderous among His saints" (Ps. 68:35). Yet in such an
anticipated panoramic synthesis, it is certain that the
entire Orthodox theory on Divine inspiration shall not
merely avoid the extremities of some heretical positions
such as verbal or word for word inspiration on the one hand
and the complete divesting of Holy Scripture's transcendent
character on the other. It will also use ample proof to make
clear that irregular Divine inspiration belongs organically
to the Church, not only because it alone could define and
recognise the canon of the authentic biblical texts, but
more importantly because biblical revelation in itself was
recorded by the Church and in the Church. Therefore only in
the Church, and in the "communion of the Holy Spirit"
unceasingly guaranteed therein, is it possible for Scripture
to be interpreted properly, that is to say authentically, as
the word of God.
Similarly, one could say that the infallibility of the
Church has been sufficiently articulated, at least as far as
the major aspects of the related theological issues are
concerned. There have been, however, - and there probably
still are - individual Orthodox theologians who, while
otherwise well meaning, have the strange belief that the
term "infallibility" reeks of western influence and
expresses a so-called institutionalised
legalism(12). However, it must be emphasised very
strongly that much has yet to be said and published, mainly
with regard to the remaining ecclesiological realities,
points (c), (d) and (e), and their deeper contribution to
the Theanthropic validity of dogma which is continuously
being verified anew.
Of course, this is not the appropriate place to present
in broader terms the ecclesiological principles which have
been mentioned in other more popularised
articles(13). Nonetheless, several things about
them must be presented in general terms in order to show
their great importance in establishing the validity of dogma
which is the issue at hand.
First of all, it is necessary to develop further the
implications of Apostolic succession which one could
justifiably call the "chromosomes" or the guarantee of the
identity and continuity of the true Church in time and
space. This is even more necessary today when, due mainly to
the worldwide association of Christians through the
ecumenical movement, there is the direct danger that the
theological senses will become so carelessly blunted that
they will be unable to diagnose or recognise the authentic
features implied in such a central and neuralgic
ecclesiological term(14). In particular, one
could consider the Bishop, the distinct and historical
figure within the entire body of the Church, through whom
all the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the other parts are, by
the grace of God, communicated, activated and perpetuated,
thereby manifesting the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic
Church in the world. No misinterpretation or quick judgement
is permitted concerning this God-given institution which
responsibly and with full measure (plenitudo
potestatis) embodies the authentic successor of the
Apostles in the midst of the people of God, but which is
sometimes unfortunately attacked by naive or malicious
accusers as being a supposedly impious remnant of outdated
despotism or medieval absolutism(15).
The countless patristic testimonies to the purely
Christocentric - or perhaps it would be more theologically
accurate to say Christological-nature of the Episcopal
function in the Church, which describe the Bishop as being
in the "place and form of Christ", the one who presides over
the Lord's Supper and, by extension, over all of the
eucharistic community of the faithful rather than just in
strictly liturgical settings and worship, are a great
scandal for the rational mind. For indeed, only the
"foolishness of the cross" (1 Cor. l:18) could possibly
overlook the claims derived from so-called natural law
concerning the absolute equality of all people. According to
this, it would be impossible to acknowledge that one person
has the right to be considered the regulatory factor for the
authenticity and prosperity of institutions and functions of
free persons gathered into the communion of the faithful,
even if this is done in the name of the "mystical body" of
Christ.
To refute these arguments, we must briefly remind
ourselves of basic aspects of the teaching of the Church
concerning the role of the Bishop. First and foremost, we
need to underline certain astounding truths which can be
easily derived from the liturgical practice surrounding the
ordination of the Bishop. Thus the general conviction and
teaching that the Bishops in the Church are "by the grace of
God" successors of the twelve Apostles themselves who placed
them in various regions as the unmistakable and visible head
of the local Church, is eloquently commented upon and
interpreted by the ordination service. This, moreover, is
clearly distinct from the liturgical content of the
corresponding services for the other two ranks of priesthood
(Presbyter and Deacon). In the case of the ordination of a
Presbyter or Deacon, no public statement and confession of
faith is required apart from that which is given by all
members of the Church during their baptism. The candidate is
guaranteed to the Church by his Bishop following his own
wish and request. On the other hand, although the candidate
for the Episcopal office in the initial stage does not have
the right to submit a petition, since the Church alone - and
only through the Holy Synod - can take such an initiative
and make this decision, the entire responsibility is then
transferred publicly to the elected candidate, who must make
an official and lengthy confession of faith during the
sacred moment of his ordination.
It is especially significant that, after the newly
ordained Bishop recites the Creed, he is invited to
"confess" and declare the faith "more broadly" in the midst
of the Church, as if unreservedly accepting with an oath
everything and everyone that the Church has ever accepted
through its Ecumenical Councils, while rejecting and
anathematising, with the same decisiveness, that which the
Councils have condemned for all time. Taking into account
the concluding verification that one who is ordained a
Bishop shall keep all these things "until his last breath",
it is obvious that he submits and even identifies his own
conscience for a lifetime with the voice and conscience of
the Church, infallibly spoken through the Ecumenical
Councils. The Bishop is officially "offered" as the person
who empties himself more than anybody else in faithful
obedience to the Church militant, in accordance with the
example of the incarnate and only begotten Son of God who,
in obedience to the will of the Father, became "obedient
unto death" (Phil. 2:8).
The purely Christological character of the office of the
Bishop is inferred from this mystic parallel, if not from
the identity according to Grace. By analogy and by virtue of
the mystical parallel that exists, all that Christ
rightfully proclaimed about Himself by saying "he who has
seen me has also seen the Father" (John 14:9), also applies
to the Bishop. Thus "by the grace of God", the Son who has
absolutely become a servant of the Church, somehow
automatically becomes the Father of all the faithful. Only
through such obedience and kenosis can one understand
and accept thereafter the supreme responsibility and
authority recognised in him by the Church. Unfortunately,
the legal vocabulary of canon law has not managed to express
this in a more suitable or effective term than the
scholastic plenitudo potestatis borrowed from the
west. The entire spiritual force of the Episcopal office is
found in the Evangelical law that "my power is made perfect
in weakness" (2 Cor. 12:9) and "when I am weak, then I am
strong" (2 Cor. 12:10). It could not have been otherwise,
since the role of the Bishop is mainly described in the New
Testament as a "ministry of conciliation".
If through the Divine inspiration of Scripture, the
infallibility of the Church and Apostolic succession there
has been a sufficiently broad recognition on the part of the
faithful of their importance in directly and substantially
contributing to the Divine-human validity of dogma, we are
not able to say the same about worship, popular piety and
martyrdom. On the contrary, the dominant impression is that
the validity of dogma - which it has of itself - is in fact
the chief cause and creative force in the development of
worship and all facets of personal or collective piety, as
well as of Christian martyrdom. Yet, without for a moment
questioning the power and formative influence of dogma on
all activities of the people of God, we must also emphasise
the reverse effect. For one cannot overlook the witnessing
which each generation of the faithful has given throughout
the centuries to the truth and sacredness of the very dogma
which they live out. Is this not the value of witnessing
which is declared by God when He emphatically calls all
people to this? Is this not the meaning of the exhortation:
"be my witnesses and I too am a witness, says the Lord God"
(Isaiah 43:10).
Matters relating to worship, and by extension all that
relates to popular piety, are not determined by personal
desires or according to prevailing secular fashions, but
rather by strictly traditional guidelines so that all things
sing together - as equal expressions of the one faith - in
the confession and praise of the Trinitarian God. Given this
fact, it is even clearer that worship, and the power of
various traditions and customs, are a further affirmation of
the Divine-human validity of dogma.
If all of this is true for the harmless and, so to speak,
regular and collective witness of the host of faithful who
are ecclesiastically gathered together, one can appreciate
how much greater the moral force and witness the blood of
the Martyrs and Confessors of the faith must be. Undeniable
proof of this of course is the fact that, very early, the
blood of martyrdom was considered by the Church as being an
equally valid path of salvation as the sacrament of Baptism.
The purifying and salvific power of martyrdom as a "font of
rebirth" was apparently pointed out by God who said through
the prophet: "let them bring their
witnesses to justify them. and let them
say " It is true'" (Isaiah 43:9). Of course it is not
without special significance that this statement highlights
something more wonderous, namely that the blood of Martyrs
is sufficient to justify" not only themselves, but also all
the faithful who are with and among them. However, we must
immediately add that such a "justification" of the Old
Testament should not be confused with the ultimate
justification, sanctification and salvation which are
through Christ, and His blood alone.
In summarising all that has been examined with regard to
that which is officially consecrated, but also with less
apparent mystical sources which perpetually "irrigate"
Church dogma, so that the faith will always be alive and
victorious over the world, it must be stated in conclusion
that, only through a correct evaluation of all sacramental
parameters made with the fear of God, is the Church of God
indeed proven to be the "communion of the created with the
Uncreated by grace. without confusion or division. for the
salvation of the created and the glory of the
Uncreated"(16).
NOTES:
1. For a more or less lexicographical study of the
development of the term "dogma". see N. Xexakis, Foreword
to Orthodox Dogmatics, Athens 1993. p. 167 onwards.
2. Mainly through the ecclesiological studies in our
century, the mystical parallelism between Theomitor (Mother
of God) and Ecclesia (Church) has been extensively
drawn, as both happen to be called Mother and Virgin
(expressed by the Orthodox in worship as "Mitroparthenon
cleos", namely, "glory of the Virgin Mother". As the
Theotokos therefore paid attention to the teaching of the
Lord in that "she kept these words in her heart" (Luke
2:19), so in the same manner the Church, having received
from the Lord and the Apostles the treasure of the faith
entrusted to it, the ultimate truth of God, keeps this in
the depths of its conscience and memory which is defined and
steadily cleansed by the Paraclete. Thus, according to the
needs of the faithful, "new and old" are derived from this
inexhaustible and undiminished treasure, for the edification
of the body of the faithful and for the equipping of
the saints (cf. Eph. 4:12).
3. Concerning this extremely significant distinction, see
further the study of the author, The infallibility of the
Church in Orthodox Theology, Athens, 1965. p.69
onwards.
4. ibid. p.78 onwards.
5. In Orthodox Dogmatics textbooks. St. Basil's testimony
always has a central position, according to which "we have
the dogmas and preaching within the Church, the former
through teachings in written form, while the latter is what
we have received mystically from Apostolic Tradition. Both
are of equal value for piety" (as pointed out in C.
Androutsos, Dogmatics, 2nd ed. Athens 1956. pp. 6-8).
The emphasis on the way in which the reception and
confession of the truths of the faith by the faithful
always occurs "in mystery" presents in fact the
purest criterion by which we must approach the problem of
the relationship between faith and knowledge in each period
of history.
6. Precisely for this reason, we consider the title
"Dogma and rational thought", in a section of C. Androutsos'
dogmatic work dealing with the relationship between the
individual theologian and dogma, as totally inadequate. For,
it is not only through rational thought that the theologian
approaches dogma in the Church, but rather his or her entire
conscience, in mystical solidarity with the other members of
the body of the Church. It would therefore have been more
accurate for that section to have had the title "Dogma and
the conscience of the faithful".
7. Cf. op. cit., The Infallibility of the Church in
Orthodox Theology, p. 140 onwards.
8. Concerning the relationship between law and grace, see
p. 51 onwards in the same work.
9. Cf. C. Androutsos, Dogmatics, p.12
10. Even recently, Prof. John Konidaris who teaches
ecclesiastical law in the School of Law at Athens University
expressed the urgency of the issue of funerals for those who
commit suicide (cf, The Sunday Vema, newspaper in
Greek, June 16 1996).
11. Refer to paper by this author "The Mystery of Person
and Human Adventure" in Orthodox Globe, Brookline,
USA, v.1, no 4 June 1996.
12. Thus, for example, the ever-memorable and benevolent
D. Moraitis. Dean of the School of Theology at the
University of Athens, when examining the author's doctoral
dissertation on "The Infallibility of the Church in Orthodox
Theology", did not hesitate to state in all sincerity that
he was totally unaware that "infallibility was an article of
faith in our Church"! Other close friends and colleagues,
namely Archimandrite Athan Jevcic (now Metropolitan of
Bosnia) and Prof. Christos Yannaras, immediately criticised
this study, but of course without convincing arguments.
13. These articles, originally published in the Voice
of Orthodoxy, the monthly periodical of the Greek
Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia. are to be reprinted by
"Domos" publications in a series of books, the first of
which will have the title "Incarnations of Dogma".
I4. It was a very painful surprise for the Orthodox, as
well as for eastern Christians generally to witness the new
outburst of audacity with which certain Christians in the
World Council of Churches approached - or rather distanced
themselves from - the issue of Apostolic succession in an
international theological conference some four years ago. A
group comprised entirely of women from America who were
supposedly ordained as "pastors attempted to convince the
assembly in one meeting of the 5th World Conference on Faith
and Order (held in 1993 in Santiago de Compostela and with
the theme "Towards Koinonia in Faith, Life and Witness"),
that "the place of the twelve Apostles in the Church and in
history does not in any way deserve greater importance or
distinction than that of any of us who believe in Christ,
whether man or woman, educated or layman". Only when the
author, as head of the Orthodox delegation at that
conference. publicly asked the most intransigent of the
furious women if she would dare to propose to the modern
world any writing of her own as an equal authority to the
sacred texts which constitute the canon of Holy Scripture,
did that "batrachian battle" - which was not a discussion at
all - end.
15. See article entitled "The Bishop in the Church" in
the Voice of Orthodoxy,. v.5 (May 1984), p.49.
16. ibid.
[Back to top]
|
|
|