Lessons on Christian Dogmatics: ON DOGMATICS AND DOGMAS (Part I)

Dogmatics – as a particular ‘branch’ and ‘lesson’ of Theology – appeared in the West for the first time and was introduced in the Orthodox Theological Schools during later times. A major characteristic of this branch, as compared to other lessons of Theology, is its systematic character. While other branches of Theology are preoccupied with the dogmatic belief of the Church, Dogmatics approaches this faith by theme, and systematically expounds it.

The Church’s systematic preoccupation with the faith appears during the patristic period for the first time, especially with Origen (his work “On Principles”), and in a strictly organized way with Saint John the Damascene (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith). Ever since that time, this subject has continued to develop in the West during Medieval times (Thomas Aquinatus, SUMMA) and during the post-Reform period, with the blossoming of Confessional Theology, in which Orthodoxy (wrongly) participated (Mogila Confession, Cyril Lucareus, Dositheos etc). In later times (after Eugene Vulgaris), this phenomenon blossomed in the 19th century (Athanasios Parios “Epitome” 1806. Moschopoulos “Epitome of dogmatic and ethical theology”, 1851. Especially among the Russians, we note the Metropolitan Anthony, Makarios of Moscow – both widely acknowledged).

In the 20th century, Z. Rossis is in the lead in Greece, with Ch. Androutsos as the central person; I. Karmiris and P. Trembelas follow, basically correcting Androutsos but still maintaining the same method and division. This branch was successfully cultivated in the Theological School of Chalki, by the Metropolitan of Myra, Chrysostom Constantinides. A new boost to Dogmatics was given by John Romanides, with his persistence that the character of the dogma entails the experience of it, and also his search for the patristic roots of the dogmas, as opposed to Western Theology.

However, systematic preoccupation is not the only form of dogmatic theology. This species didn’t exist in the Bible or in the Fathers of the first century; instead, a circumstantial dogmatic theology prevailed, in the following forms:

Christological hymns in the New Testament, which Paul discovered in the first communities (i.e., Philippians 2). These comprise theological-dogmatic elements for his entire line of thought. The same applies with the literary content of John’s Gospel (John’s Gospel is considered by many as a Eucharist-liturgical text; if not entirely, then at least in its basic core. As for the Gospel’s prologue, it most probably comprises liturgical material that John found to be used in worship). Peter’s literary work also: (Peter’s Epistle A is quite possibly a baptismal Liturgy), etc. The same applies to the Eucharist references of the first centuries, which comprise forms of prophetic-charismatic theology by the bishops that headed the Eucharist congregations (who –by the way- were initially free to improvise, as testified in Justin, the Teaching, etc.)

The baptismal form, along with the catechist preparation that preceded it. This is also the chief source of Symbolic Theology (i.e., the Symbols of Faith). All Symbols were Baptismal and they remained thus during the first centuries. For example, the 1st Ecumenical Council (Synod) uses as the basis of its Creed the baptismal symbols of the local Churches.

This form boosted the development and expansion of the initial baptismal symbols to a broader range of symbols, in order to confront the dangers of heresies (i.e. Gnosticism, Arianism, etc.). In this context, Patristic Theology (Irenaeus, Athanasios, Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus the Confessor etc.) attained special importance and evolved as opposition, and were not intended as a positive exhibition of faith.

and especially the Ecumenical Councils (Synods), which originated from a combination of anti-heretic theology (=the exclusion of heresies), and the baptismal-symbolic theology. Thus, the terms and the symbols of the Synods -as well as many of their Canons- likewise comprise fundamental forms of dogmatic theology.

This is a form of theology that originated in the ascetic (mainly) experience of the Fathers, which is of special significance to the Orthodox. Here, the maxims of the desert Fathers, the works of Saint John of the Ladder, Maximus the Confessor, Simeon the Young Theologian, the Esychasts and especially Gregory Palamas, all express dogmatic theology through ascetic experience.

Because of all these elements, Dogmatics is basically an experience, an empirical issue, and not a matter of intellectual perception or the presentation of logical proposals. It is not a matter of approving and confessing truths that are merely directed at one’s mind and logic, but are empirically experienced relations between man and God.

From this last point it can be surmised that the meaning of empirical experience should not be understood as reverential (=a psychological experience of the person), or as ethical (=a specific behavior of the person - certain actions of his); it should be understood existentially, in the broader sense of the term, which relates to ontology. In other words, Dogmatics involves issues that relate to the very being of a person (=to exist or not to exist), and such issues are –for example- the naught (“non-being”) (=creation), life and death as terminal points of existence, the created and the uncreated as an issue of freedom (of being), the person and love as the borderline distinctions between man and animal (=the moment during which man is either elevated as a man, or falls), in other words, the problem of evil and sin – and generally everything that touches on fundamental and ontological matters, and not merely on matters of life improvement (i.e., the organizing of social life in a more productive way etc.. Certain theologians preoccupy themselves mainly with this, in the West).

A result of all these positions is that Dogmatics always pertains to vital issues, of salvific significance; the Church always dogmatizes in order to save, and not in order to enrich our knowledge of God, the world etc.. Each dogma of the Church and each synodical dogmatic decision always pertains to a specific problem of salvation; this means that our entire relationship with God and the world changes in a dangerous way if a certain dogma is not accepted, or, in the opposite case, it will be formulated in a salvific way for us and the world, if the dogma becomes accepted. Consequently, in Dogmatics we must always seek the salvific significance of the dogmas and not just present them dryly, like logical “formulas”. This is what we mean by existential comprehension of the dogma or empirical theology in its true sense.

Thus, Dogmatics has to always strive to interpret the dogmas, and not preserve them or present them as expressed in their original form. This subject is huge and extremely sensitive, and needs to be analyzed.

1. The problem of hermeneutics (interpretation) is of timely importance, not only for the dogmas, but for the Holy Bible itself. I would say that hermeneutics itself is essentially the problem. Just as the Bible is a dead letter when not interpreted, thus the dogmas become fossilized and museum items – archaeological objects – which we simply preserve and describe if we don’t proceed to interpret them. One could say that the dogmas are essentially the interpretation of the Bible.

a. The attempt to comprehend faithfully (not anachronistically – which is a difficult thing, as it needs good historians) the historical reality, in the framework of which the dogma (or the Scripture) was expressed. This involves the following questions:

Ι. What kind of problems did the Church have to confront during that historical period?

Α. What kind of written and verbal tradition did the Church have at its disposal? (Holy Bible, Tradition etc.)? (Every Synod would always take into account any previous tradition).

Β. What kind of vocabulary and meanings did the cultural environment of that era have at its disposal? (for example, the 4th century uses the word “homoousios” –of the same essence- which the New Testament doesn’t have, while the 14th century includes other meanings etc.)

C. What kind of experiences (worship, ascetic living etc.) did it have? (for example, martyrdom in the New Testament, the icons in the 7th Ecumenical Council/synod, Esychasm, etc.)

All of the above must be taken into account, in order to form an idea of the historical environment. Without an accurate historical basis, every interpretation would be a risky one. The interpretation of the Bible is not possible, unless there is previously an accurate and subjective (as much as possible) research into the historical background, as with the dogmas. We need to see which problems led to the drafting of a dogma; what kind of literary and philosophical material the Fathers utilized, and from what experience (worship, ascetic etc.) the formulation of the dogma sprang. An able dogmatist must also be an able historian.

b. The attempt to locate and to define contemporary problems that demand evaluation, for example:

Ι. Possible new heresies or new, agonizing questions of mankind, always of a fundamental character (nowadays the so-called Jehovah’s Witnesses etc.; also technology, ecology etc.)

ΙΙ. The vocabulary and the categorizing of that time (we saw how the Fathers were also contemporaries of their time, yet without remaining fixed to the letter of the New Testament – see reference on ‘homoousios’)

ΙΙΙ. The adorational and ascetic lifestyle of the Church (which cannot essentially differ from the old one, but is possible for it to have varying forms and emphasis, for example martyrdom, mental prayer in the specific Hesychastic form, the influence of monkhood on the ‘secular’ services of the Church – Hours, etc. – and the gradual disengagement from it - albeit incomplete and inconsistent, as observed for example in our days. All these are indications of a shift in emphasis in the adorational and ascetic experience, which cannot but affect the interpretation of a dogma.

In order to provide a good interpretation, the dogmatician must not only be a good historian, but a good philosopher as well (with philosophical thought and a knowledge of contemporary philosophy), and he must also have a poemantic disposition (love towards mankind, leaning over their problems etc.). He is also obliged to be familiar with the liturgical experience and the life of the Church and its Canonic structure, because these elements also express the dogmatic faith of the Church. (Of course all of the above cannot be concentrated in one person in a unique way - in other words, a unique researcher of all the above – but he must, if he desires to be a good dogmatician, be kept informed of the latest positions of the specialists in those individual areas).

As you can see, Dogmatics has a broad spectrum of research and presupposes a manifold knowledge as well as sensitivity and creative thought. It is for this reason, that the Dogmatics method must include:

A. A very general plan or structure, which would be the Symbol of Faith (Creed) as it had always prevailed in Baptismal and Eucharist worship. The reason this structure is recommended, is that it was basically upheld during the Patristic era, and also, because it is linked to the very structure of relations that God – through Christ and in the Holy Spirit – had provided for our salvation. You must observe here that, when the subdivision by theoretical material of topics such as Triadology, Christology, Salvation, Sacraments, eschatological, etc. is not directly linked to the structure of the Symbol of Faith (Creed), it becomes dangerous. This was developed in the West and was copied by the Orthodox, with the Russians and Androutsos at the lead.

Β. This plan has to be very general, so that it may accommodate the various components. For example, in the sector on the Holy Trinity, reference can be made to the Church and vice versa. Or, on the Sacraments, to End Times etc.. In this way, Scholastic Dogmatics that came from the West is avoided. However, analogies must always be maintained, as we shall see in the respective chapters.

C. Verification and a faithful presentation of the significance of dogmas in their era are imperative, i.e.: What kind of problems did they have in mind, and what means (literary-philosophical) did they use, to confront those problems? In other words, Orthodox Dogmatics must always contain an element of history; if it lacks a solid dogmatic history, then it cannot become part of Orthodox Dogmatics.

D. Attempts should be made to interpret each dogma, with the following as guides:

Ι. By linking it to the adorational and ascetic experience of the Church (e.g., Christ, as the Son of God: how He is worshipped and how He is experienced within the Church?).

ΙΙ. By linking it to mankind’s most fundamental existential problems during each era, such as: the quest for freedom, love, the transcendence of death etc. (example: the significance of faith in a Trinitarian God in each of these cases).

ΙΙΙ. By linking it to mankind’s current problems. This is mainly the field of Ethical Poemantics, but it should be prepared –at least with cues- by dogmatic theologians. (for instance, current day social problems, issues that are raised by technology, ecology, etc.)

ΙV. By linking it to the broader problems of Knowledge nowadays, as posed by Natural Sciences etc.

The term is derived from the (Greek) verb “dokein” (= seeming, believing) and originally, its literal meaning was “that which seems good or proper to someone”; it also pertains to belief, ideology, principle, opinion, faith, and other related meanings. (Plato’s Soph.256C: «by making use of the many dogmas and words…»).

From its original meaning of a personal opinion, the term was transposed to the field of philosophical positions; in other words, it became a knowledge belonging to a (philosophical) School. (e.g. Plutarch, Ethica 14B: “the dogmas pertaining to souls” or the Stoic philosophers’ dogmas, etc.) The transposing over to this meaning is justified, by the fact that ancient thought demanded eclecticism in philosophy.

Later on, this term was transposed to public life (the state) and it signified decisions or decrees bearing state authority (Plato’s Laws, 644D: “the city dogma”, also in Luke, 2:1: “a decree (dogma, in the Greek text) was issued by Caesar Augustus to conduct a census of the population”. Thus, the term took on the meaning of something compulsory, something characterized by authority and prestige.

It afterwards took on a religious meaning, through the Old Testament and Judaism, with a legal-compulsory character. This is why it had a rather negative inference in Apostle Paul (Colossians, 2:14), where Christ is said to have “erased the manuscript of dogmas that were against you” and in (Ephesians, 2:15), where Christ abolished the enmity in His Body, by “abolishing the dogma of the Law of the Commandments”).

In Luke, however, they specifically adopted the initial, affirmative meaning that was to prevail from then onwards in Christian usage. Acts, 16:4: “……as they passed through the cities, they delivered unto them the decrees (‘dogmas’ in Greek text) that were validated by the apostles and the elders…”. We thus arrive at the dogmas of the Church, as being the authentic decisions pertaining to faith, that are delivered for compulsory acceptance, and are linked to the presence and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

A classical example is in Acts, 15:28: “…it seemed proper (refer above, to the origin of the word ‘dogma’) to the Holy Spirit and to us (=us the Apostles)”

The usage of the term with its contemporary, technical meaning is rare, in the Fathers of the Church. Whenever it appears, it has the following characteristics:

A) For the original, Apostolic Fathers, the term is most likely linked to practice rather than theory (ref. Ignatius, Megnesians 13:1, Barnabas, etc.)

B) It is equally used in instances pertaining to the Church and heretics (Vasilios the Great, To Esychasts: “…possible to destroy the heterodox dogmas…” ; also, in John The Chrysostom: the devil “has sown these deceitful dogmas of irreverence; in the Menaion of January “as for the dogmas of the infidel, they are justly drowned…”

C) Very important: the dogma is linked to worship, contradistinguishing it to kerygma (teaching, sermon). This is expressed in a monumental proposal by Vasilios the Great, in his work on the Holy Spirit: “…..for, dogmas are hushed, whereas sermons are publicized...”. This passage gave rise to younger patrologists to interpret Vasilios’ hushing as pertaining to the divinity of the Holy Spirit. But for our present topic of discussion, this phrase of Vasilios has the following significance: Dogmas are those things that the Church (as a worshipping community) confesses, and not those things that it promulgates to others, who are outside the Church. The deeper meaning of this viewpoint will preoccupy us again later on, but for the time being, we can just make a note that according to Vasilios the Great, the meaning of ‘dogma’ has the community of the Church as a prerequisite, along with a participation in its worship, otherwise it bears no authority.

This basic position of the Fathers - which we often forget – is also expressed by Gregory the Theologian, in the familiar phrase of his Address to Eunomians: “let us philosophize, within our own boundaries”. As testified by these words, the meaning inferred is: “within the holy territory” (and not in Egypt and Assyria), in other words, within the Church.

From this, we surmise that the authority of a dogma does not belong to the sphere of logic, nor to a blind obedience to -and resignation from- logic, but to a new logic, which is generated from the relations between the people of the ecclesiastic community. But we shall talk more about this later on.

Summary: ‘Dogma’ is that which an ecclesiastic community embraces as an (existentially) salvatory truth that applies to every man, and requires its members to accept it (through personal experience) as authoritative, because of the specialized relations that it ordains between members, as well as towards the world and God. The kerygma (sermon) on the other hand is whatever is addressed to all persons, publicly, in order that they may become members of the Church, and only then (as members of the Church) confess it as a dogma, having experienced it personally.

The truth does not become a dogma, unless it has been experienced and certified from within the Church. From this, it is obvious that the dogmas of the Church are not limited in number; new dogmas can be formulated in every era, because the Church is a living organism and the Holy Spirit is not associated to certain isolated periods of history. But, for a truth to become a dogma of the Church (and not a personal opinion), it must necessarily go through the community of the Church in its totality, and not only through a few people – be they theologians in the current (academic) sense, or saints. This point needs clarifications, because two important issues are posed:

The affiliation of dogmas to the Scriptures is a hermeneutic one. The problem posed by Western theologians, after the Reform Era, as to whether we have one or two “sources of divine revelation” as they were named, denotes the specific concern between Roman Catholics and Protestants, given that the latter had rejected the authority of the Tradition of the Church, and had introduced the principle of “sola scriptura” (=only the scripture). In Orthodox Theology, the problem was posed through the so-called “Orthodox Confessions” of the 17th century (prev.ref.). Thus, depending on the deviation of these “confessions” (Mogilas=Roman Catholicism, Cyril Loukaris=Calvinism, etc.), the answer was –and continues to be- provided by the Orthodox. The West was led into this concern for two reasons, which do not apply in Orthodoxy:

1. The West lacked the element that a revelation is always something personal, and never something logical or intellectual. God revealed Himself to Abraham, to Moses, to Paul, to the Fathers, etc.. Consequently, it is never an issue of a “new” revelation, or an “addition” to a revelation, or even a case of John’s Revelations being “incremented”, as suggested even by Orthodox theologians.

2. In the West, an objectification of the Scriptures and the Church had become prevalent to such an extent, that expressions such as “treasuries” of the truth were coined. But in Orthodox tradition, both the Scripture and the Church are considered to be testimonies of experience of the truth, and not merely “masterminds” that perceive, record and transmit truths. This is because the truth in Orthodox Tradition is not a matter of objective, logical proposals; the truth consists of (personal) stances and relations between God, mankind and the world. (For example, I do not become acquainted with the truth by intellectually knowing and finally accepting that God is Triune; it is only when I am personally involved existentially in the Triadic existence of God, through which my entire being –as well as the world’s– acquires a meaning. In this way, any ordinary, everyday woman who is however a proper member of the Church, can “know” the dogma of the Trinity. The same applies for Christology etc.). But we shall go into this topic of Gnosiology in more detail, later.

Consequently, if the Revelation of God is a matter of personal experience and a broader implication of man in a lattice of relations with God, with fellow-man and the world, and if it pours new light onto overall existence, then the Scripture that testifies to this Revelation is considered complete, both from the aspect of the Revelation’s content, as well as for every other similar kind Revelation pursuant to the composing of the Bible’s Canon. We must add the following clarifications here:

Even though in every case of such personal and existential revelations, the revelations are of the One and Only God, the means by which they are revealed differ; for instance, on Mount Sinai we have a revelation of God Himself, which is revealed to us in Christ, but not in the same way. With Christ, we are enabled not only to see or hear God, but to actually touch Him, to feel Him, to commune with Him physically: “Who was from the beginning, Whom we heard, Whom we saw and Whom our hands touched”. (John I, 1:1). The divine epiphanies of the Old Testament, and subsequently in the New Testament, while having the same content, are not revealed in the same way. And, because a Revelation –as we said– is not a matter of objective knowledge but a personal relationship, the form of a Revelation is of vital importance because it introduces new relationships, or in other words, new existential ways.

(The matter of relations between Old and New Testaments is historically very old in Patristic Theology, and it was solved through the Theology of saint Irineos, who dramatically corrected Justin’s teaching on the Logos, and was later formulated excellently by Saint Maximus the Confessor, in his principle that stated: “the contents of the Old Testament are the shadow, the contents of the New Testament are the image, and the (contents of) the things to come is the truth.”)

Consequently, in the person of Christ we have a unique form of revelation that is characterized by communion with the senses (vision, touch, taste, etc., as per the passage of John I, 1:1 where we read: «and Whom our hands touched»), and not only with the mind or the heart. This is why this way was judged by the Fathers as being the supreme and fullest way. Nothing is superior to Christophany (Christ being revealed): “Whomsoever has seen me, has seen the Father”. Thus, the New Testament –in which is recorded the experience of those people who had this physical communion with God (“Whom we saw and Whom our hands touched”) – gives meaning to both the Theophanies (God being revealed) in the Old Testament, as well as those that followed, after the Bible. In fact, the Fathers (Irineos and others) maintain that after the Incarnation of the Logos, we have a fuller and newer form of revelation than that of the Old Testament. In respect to the Disciples, this superiority is attributed to their tangible and physical association with Christ; in respect to the subsequent Church, this superiority is attributed to the Sacraments and especially in the Eucharist, which has preserved this physical communion (see Ignatius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria etc.). Those who participate deservedly in the Divine Eucharist, can “see” God much better than Moses.

Thus, the entire life of the Church draws the revelation of God from the event of the historical Christ, as recorded in the New Testament. And that is why the New Testament has the status of an exceptional and primeval dogma, compared to which, all other revelatory means (including the Old Testament and subsequent dogmas) comprise renditions of it, in the more profound, existential sense of the word, i.e. the means of experiencing existence, as a new relationship between God, mankind and the world.

Conclusion: Neither the rendering of the New Testament or the dogmas can circumvent the event and the person of Christ, because that would require the insertion of a new kind of revelation, fuller and superior to that of Christ. We can draw a great number of individual conclusions from this, but I will note only the following:

Α. The Divine Eucharist, as the exceptional form of tangible communion –and therefore cognizance- of God, remains forever the highest and most perfect form of God’s revelation, in its personal, existential sense (“and Whom our hands touched”).

Β. The viewings of God (every form of Theophany), whether through holy icons or through the ascetic experience, are viewings of the Uncreated Light, always in the form that it is revealed in Christ, and not independent of it; in other words, they are essentially Christophanies. (This should be stressed, in order to avoid misunderstandings that are unfortunately beginning to increase in number). As proof of this, it suffices to mention that, as regards the icons, the entire argumentation of saints John the Damascene, Theodore the Studite etc Iconophiles is: that Christ’s incarnation imposes the veneration of icons as forms of God’s revelation; and as for the Uncreated Light, that this light was understood by the holy Esychasts to be the Taborian Light, in other words, as a partaking of the light that radiated from the historical body of Christ.

Getting back to the association between Scripture and dogmas, we therefore note that every dogma, regardless to what it pertains (even the issue of the Holy Trinity), is essentially a memorandum to the event of Christ, through which God is revealed as an existential experience of a relationship, in other words, as truth. It is not by chance, that, for instance, the 1st Ecumenical Council (Synod), while founding the Trinitarian theology, also did this on the pretext and the basis of the truth regarding the Person of Christ. The same was done by all the pursuant Ecumenical Councils, even though they were also preoccupied with all other issues.

This indicates that the Apostolic experience that is recorded in the Bible comprises the first dogma, which is then interpreted by all the other dogmas. It is therefore impossible for any dogma to impinge on this experience; it can only interpret it. The Apostolic experience and tradition is of decisive importance for the dogma. In this way, we have a consecutiveness of dogmas, a sequence of dogmas, which resemble icons of Christ that are painted by different people in different eras, and with the means that every era had at its disposal.

This sequence is both external (= a fidelity to the preceding tradition and finally to the Bible), and also internal (= a preservation of the same existential relationship between God, mankind and the world, as fulfilled and revealed in Christ).

“Theophany” (the manifestation of God) as “Christophany” (the manifestation of Christ), which comprises the basis of the dogma, contains two basic problems. The one problem is that, one needs to cover the period of time that intervenes between the historical Christ and His (=the Apostolic) era, with the pursuant generations; these are the eras in which the dogma is formulated. So, How is it possible to bridge this time chasm?

The second problem is that, within that same historical Theophany in Christ, there is the dimension of “already, and not yet”: in the historical Christ and the experience of the first apostles, we have God’s revelation “as an inner reflection and an enigma” and not as something seen “face to face”. The fulfilled, “face to face” revelation is an eschatological reality. Christ bears a pre-portrayal and a pre-savoring of the Kingdom, in other words, the complete and direct, personal cognizance (knowledge) of God. Until that “last day” has come, no prophet or saint has a full cognizance of God, in a stable and unchangeable form. How is it possible for this pre-savoring of paradise, this complete cognizance of God to be attained from now, with a complete certainty that the proclaimed dogma expresses this pre-portrayal, and that it formulates it faithfully and accurately?

In other words, the dogma -as a faithful portrayal of Christ who reveals God- has to be faithful in the following two dimensions:

B. The faithful portrayal of the future, eschatological Christ and His Kingdom. (ref. Byzantine icons – they are not limited to historical representations, but they also portray the future situation, for example the icon of the Pentecost). This task of bridging the present (=dogma) with the past (historical Christophany) and the future (=Second Coming), is the exceptional task of the Holy Spirit in Divine Providence.

“It seemed proper to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15), is the decision reached by the Apostolic Synod. It comprises the fixed conviction of the Church that the dogmas are of the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, as is the Scripture (“every divinely inspired scripture…..”) (Timothy II, 3:16). But this requires serious attention, because it can be understood in different ways; thus:

The presence of the Holy Spirit and His action can be misconstrued as a kind of magical and mechanical intervention of God. This reminds us of the “divine inspiration” of the ancient Hellenes (divination, oracles etc.), where personal freedom was excluded: the authors of the Bible and the Fathers of the Councils (Synods) were thus involuntary instruments of the Spirit. This is a perception that prevailed in the West (from where it also originated), in the form of so-called Fundamentalism. The presence and the effect of the Spirit can be comprehended as being the result of moral changes in man. When we say “moral changes”, we imply a broader meaning of man’s every improvement that is attributed to his own striving. (for example, catharsis from vices; acquiring virtues etc.) The effect of the Holy Spirit can be perceived as being the result of a community event, in both its perpendicular and its lateral dimensions, in other words, as a result of the communion within an ecclesiastic community.

Of these possibilities, the first one must be excluded altogether. The Holy Spirit is a Spirit of freedom, and does not force man. Besides, the event of Christ, the very nature of Christophany, is such that it fully respects a person’s freedom.

The second possibility has more value and gravity and is more fitting to the prerequisites of ascetic experience, which, as we saw, must always be taken into consideration. Without catharsis from vices, it is not possible for anyone to see God (for example, whoever hates his brother cannot see God – ref. John I). In this same spirit, saint Gregory the theologian rebutted the Eunomians, who had created an entirely different, intellectual theology that allowed anyone to “theologize”, even “after horseracing events and singing and feasting…which (theology) deemed equally a part of enjoyment”, by pointing out to them that “it is not for everyone to philosophize on God…. not for everyone”, but only “by those who have been tested and who have spent their life in theory (of God), and –prior to this- have a cleansed soul and body, or are at least cleansing them”. However, if ascetic living is taken as an isolated and self-sufficient prerequisite, then it is suffering from two serious faults: that of individualism and moralism. In other words, we shall be in danger of believing that God reveals Himself to isolated individuals and under certain conditions of human achievement.

This is why the second possibility must necessarily be combined with the third one, which the ecclesiastic form of action of the Holy Spirit.

In order for this to be comprehended, we must first of all rid ourselves of a faulty perception that we have; i.e., that the Holy Spirit acts upon isolated persons. This perception is so widespread, that it might seem strange to refer to it as “faulty”. Those who defend this view are overlooking a fundamental distinction between the action of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament and the action in the New Testament. In the Old Testament, the Spirit is given to certain people (prophets, kings, etc.) and not the entire nation of Israel. During the Messianic era however, when the Holy Spirit is introduced in the New Testament with the arrival of the Messiah, it was expected that the Spirit would be given to the entire nation of God. This is why Luke in his narration of the Pentecost uses the phrase of the prophet Joel: “in the last days I shall pour forth from My Spirit over every flesh…..says the Lord Almighty”

As a result of this, all baptized Christians -in the New Testament- were considered as having the Holy Spirit and possessing various charismas. If we examine chapter 12 of Corinthians I, we can see how, for the apostle Paul, being a member of the Church is equivalent to possessing a certain charisma of the Spirit. Given that the Corinthians were under the impression that some people can be more charismatic than others, Paul refutes this perception vehemently, and stresses that everyone has some sort of charisma, even those who perform a simple task such as administration etc. Paul thus strikes back at every form of “spiritual elitism”, stressing that even if someone has adequate knowledge or faith to “move mountains”, he will be nothing, if he has no “love”.

What does “love” signify here? If we take a look at this text as a whole (chapters 11 – 14) and not as isolated verses, we can see that for Paul, “love” –therein- signifies the communion that the community of the Church creates. Love here is not about the feelings of a certain person (good intentions etc.), but the inter-dependence of the members of the church, as one body. “Love” means not saying that ‘I am the head and I don’t need the legs’ etc… This is what Paul was stressing here: the inter-dependence of the assorted charismas.

It is precisely for this reason, that Paul ends his Epistle by naming the Holy Spirit “community”. In Corinthians II, 13:13, it actually appears to be an expression that existed prior to Paul in the liturgical usage of the first Churches, and one that has remained a basic element of the Divine Eucharist ever since. Wherever the Spirit drifts, It creates a community, and destroys individualism. We must understand this thoroughly. This was how all the Fathers of the Church had also perceived the Holy Spirit. One could present a multitude of quotes from the Fathers of the first centuries, for example Gregory of Nazianzo, who especially focuses on personal “theory” (= “viewing”), hence endowing a special significance to the way he refers to the Holy Spirit. In his 12th Address, he compares the desire for “theory” with the Spirit as follows: On the one hand, there is the desire for theory, that is, the tendency for solitude, a catharsis of the mind and theory; but, this is not where the Spirit leads to. “The Spirit moves within (the congregation of the church), leading it and making it fruitful (the ecclesiastic community), in the desire to benefit it, that they may benefit each other, and make public the (Spirit’s) enlightenment”. This is why the “prepared” (congregated) church is –to saint Gregory- so much more superior than the experience of theory, as the skies are by comparison to a star, or a garden to a plant, or a whole body to a body member. To the Fathers, this is the chief work of the Spirit: to lead towards the overall Church, and not towards isolated, personal experiences.

Consequently, all the charismas of the Church are necessary for the revelation of God; not just the few and far between ones. The reason for this is that no charisma can be imaginable, without its inter-dependence with the other ones. The Church has a variety of charismas; not everyone possesses “knowledge”, not everyone has healing abilities, or the gift of speaking languages, or administrative abilities etc.. They are not all “god-seers” in the same way. At any rate, no-one can see God on his own and independently of the other charismas. The Spirit acts as a community, and that means: within the body of the Church.

Thus, we reach the conclusion with regard to the dogmas, that the revelation of the truth always presupposes a communion and a community of the Church in order for the dogma to be a truth. What exactly does this mean?

We shall speak more of the Church in the respective chapter, but as far as the dogmas are concerned, we can make note of the following:

“Church” means the communion and the community through which -and within which- the new existential relations between God, mankind and the world (as manifested and realized in the person of Christ) are revealed and realized. In other words, in the Church, the entire world, with the new Adam (Christ) at its head, acknowledges God as “Father” and is thus “saved” from alienation and deterioration. The cognizance and the revelation of God is thus an empirical reality within the body of the Church, which has the form of a paternal-filial association wherein the entire world is embodied, thus constituting the “body of Christ”. Consequently, the Church – as the body of Christ – is, in this sense, the only proper and complete existential form of cognizance of God, through the lattice of relations that are realized within the community.

In order for the Church to comprise the full revelation of this existential form of cognizance of God, it must have the following elements, which arise from the aforementioned definition:

A. It must be a community-congregation that consists of all the Church members. All of the baptized members of the Church (who continue to preserve the association between God-mankind-people, as manifested and realized in Christ) are necessary, for the constituting of the body that will reveal Christ. Consequently, the lay people who remain faithful to the baptismal relationship between God and the world are of an opportune significance to the revelation of the truth of the Son as the new association between God and the world.

B. It must have at the head of the community a ministry that will express the presence of Christ and the Apostles as the ones who will constantly judge the community’s preservation of the original form of the body of Christ as revealed and experienced in the Old Testament era (see above). This ministry cannot be anything other than the prelate bishop of the Eucharist community as an image of Christ, surrounded by the presbyters, as images of the Apostles. This prevailed from the 2nd century A.D. onward (Ignatius of Antioch) without interruption (until the Reform in the West), because in the Eucharist, the community of the Church exceptionally lives and reveals this Christ-centered association-revelation between God and the world. The cognizance of God there is experienced as the revealing of the new, salvatory association between God and the world as manifested in Christ (more in the respective chapter).

Consequently, the leadership of the Eucharist community, in the person of the bishop, expresses the faith of that community “with one mouth and one heart”, as cited during the Divine Eucharist; in other words, it is expressed as a unanimity and not a dissent.

C. Given that the Church is not comprised of one only community but of many, the expressing of the entire Church’s faith “throughout the world” becomes a reality, when all of the communities –through their prelate bishops- coincide in the same faith; or, as Saint Ignatius of Antioch says: “when the bishops in every corner of the world are of the (same) opinion as Jesus Christ”. It was thus, that the synods (councils) of the prelate bishops -as the means of expressing the unanimity of their communities- came to be the most comprehensive expression of the proper faith of the Church. Therefore, the dogmas of the Church that are expressed by such synods (councils) – and especially when these synods include or represent all of the prelate bishops (these are the ecumenical councils) – are those that express the faith of the Church and reveal the cognizance of God within His association to the world through Christ, in the fullest manner.

D. In order for the dogma to be a living reality and not a simple logical or expressive formulation, it must continuously be filtered through the community of the Church, to all of its members, as a perpetual confirmation and reception of it, in the conscience of the entire body of the Church. This reception does not have any legal status in the Orthodox Church (that is, no specific procedures for the reception of dogmas by church members are foreseen), instead, reception acts in a positive way as the liturgical “Amen” of the laity, without which the bishops cannot authentically perform anything liturgically, or proclaim and express anything dogmatically. It also acts negatively, in cases where there is a disagreement between bishops and the crew of the Church (for example, the Council of Florence). But, above all, the passing, the “circulation” of the dogma within the body, inside the veins of the entire community, is effected through the experiencing of the dogma, which we referred to above (with the variety of charismas).

Thus, the entire church, the clergy with the bishops at the head, and the populace, all participate in the shaping of the dogmas as living and empirical truths that reveal God as the Father of Jesus Christ, and through Him, of the entire world, with Jesus Christ – the God-man – at its head. Bishops have the special ministry-charisma (and responsibility) of convening synods (councils), through which the faith-dogma can be confessed as a common and unanimous “cognizance” of God for all the Churches. That is why it is up to them to formulate the dogmas.

But, the completion of a dogma demands the circulation, the reception and the experiencing of it by the entire body of the Church.

A. Dogmas acquire their prestige from the constancy that they display towards the initial form of existential relationship between God and the world, which is not only revealed as a noetic “knowledge”, but is realized as a communion between God, the world and mankind in Christ; also in the experience of the first Disciples and apostolic communities, and as recorded in the New Testament.

Β. In order for the dogmas to have prestige and authority, it is imperative that the eucharist community functions properly; in other words, it must be built properly, with the elements that we mentioned previously, and it must function as a community that consists of all the charismas and all the social classes. Consequently, the prestige of the dogmas is not imposed from on high, in the name of an authority that is perceived juridicially (=as already existent by definition in an institution), but is made evident and is consolidated as the “Amen” of the entire community. Thus, from the moment that the dogma has been completed in this manner and is consolidated in the conscience of the Church, its prestige becomes irrevocable, and the only thing that is permissible from then on, is the experiencing and the interpretation of that dogma (by dogmatic theology, by ascetic living, by hymnography, hagiography, etc..).

Thus, whatever was “decreed” (in the above sense) as a “dogma” has absolute prestige and authority, and no pursuant synod or theology is allowed to “rescind” it, only to interpret it, perhaps formulating new dogmas, which, however, in order to become dogmas with prestige and authority of an equal stature to the preceding dogmas, must fulfill the same prerequisites that we mentioned above.

C. From the above, we can comprehend the meaning of infallibility in the dogmas (and the Church). To the Orthodox, infallibility is not contained in any institution per se (for example in synods or in bishops), not even in any moral perfection or individual experience, or its acknowledgement through experience. The saints or the fathers, as individuals, are not automatically and by definition infallible. Infallibility is the result of the “communion of the Holy Spirit”, Who “composes the wholeness of the institution of the Church”. Therefore, no-one as an individual can be infallible; in other words, on his own, without any reference to the other charismas and functions of the Church. But, each individual can empirically express the truth of the Church as formulated by the synods of the bishops in an “infallible” way, provided the individual is faithful to this truth (as, for example, a hymnographer, or a hagiographer or an ascete or a martyr or an ordinary Christian who lives faithfully and humbly as a member of the eucharist body of the Church.)

D. Especially in the case of dogmatic theology, it is obvious that it cannot claim infallibility in the same sense that the decreed dogmas do. Many theologians confuse the dogmas with the theology of the Fathers when speaking of authority: “This was stated by Father so-and-so, therefore it must be infallible”. This can lead to a dangerous confusion. In order for a patristic position to acquire full authority, it must be passed through the furnace of “the communion of the Holy Spirit” that we described above, and neither the holiness nor the personal prestige of that Holy Father qualify enough to make it of an equal stature to the dogmas. For example, Athanasios the Great had correctly phrased the faith of the Church, before the 1st Ecumenical Synod (Council) had convened to dogmatize. But it was only when the teaching of the 1st Ecumenical Synod was established in the Church, that Athanasios’ theology was rendered an infallible “dogma”, with a compulsory, overall acceptance.

Of course the question is raised, as to what happens in those periods when ecumenical synods are inoperative and dogmas are not decreed. In this case, the Church continues to live and confess the truth of God’s Christophany, through various forms of experience and confessions, through the its contemporary Fathers (the Church always has Fathers); the Patristic era did not come to an end in the 9th century, as was predominantly believed by the West.

However, these Fathers interpret the existing dogmas without producing any new ones; in other words, without expecting the overall acceptance by the Ecumenical Church of whatever they say. Thus, in the case of Dogmatics (for all of us who are preoccupied with the holy dogmas as teachers or as students), what we strive for is an (existential) interpretation of the dogmas, which is something that cannot demand any kind of prestige.

It would be somewhat excessive – if not audacious – for a theologian to expect his own interpretation to be the one that fully and validly expresses the interpretation of the dogmas. Every one of us is capable of erring, and that is why we must all be humble enough to listen to each other’s views. Without this humility, we are at risk of proclaiming ourselves infallible popes, which is something that often appears in Orthodoxy, whereby each theologian tends to become a “pope”. The truth is revealed and is consolidated (=becomes infallible) only through our humble incorporation in the body of the Church, and by resigning ourselves to the communion and the community of the Holy Spirit.

Because God, after all, is recognized only “in the Spirit”, through Love. But we shall speak of this in the next chapter on Gnosiology.

The first of a series of reflections on Christian Dogmatics I will be posting. The author, Metropolitan Iakovos (John) Zizioulas is widely regarded as one of the foremost living theologians in the world today.

Comments are welcome but please read the post first. (You may find it easier to click on the link and peruse the table of contents with links to the entire body of works.) Also please bear in mind that many questions will likely be answered in future posts. This is a rather long collection of his works.

For clarification and in order to avoid possible confusion, the author is Greek Orthodox and the views presented are from the perspective of the Orthodox Church.

2 posted on 05/14/2015 4:50:59 PM PDT by NRx (An unrepentant champion of the old order and determined foe of damnable Whiggery in all its forms.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.