The sacred authority and Theanthropicvalidity of dogma

In an attempt to promote properly and constructively thesacredness and the inviolate character of dogma in the midst of thegeneral instability and questioning of the world's values. we oftenspeak of the authenticity and validity of dogma, unthinkingly usingthese two terms in the same sense, almost as if they weresynonyms. Careful study shows that this is a grave error whichtestifies to an unacceptable confusion of meanings that leads in turnto a gross inaccuracy of expression. This verbal recklessnessunfortunately goes beyond formal terminology. Greater damage iscaused by the fact that such inaccuracy seriously obstructs thecorrect understanding of the deeper essence of dogma which -as hasbeen already stated and as shall be shown below in more detail- liesin its Theanthropic character.

To avoid fatal confusion, then, we must distinguish between themeanings of "authority" and "validity" by carefully examining theprecise content of each. When speaking of "authority", we do not meanof course the moral force and binding character of dogma, but ratherthe "fatherhood" and "source" from where the truth which becomesdogma emanates. This is more easily understood if we consider thecorresponding Latin termauctorirtas which refers more directlyto the notion of fatherhood. In these terms, it is clear why"authority" is identified only with the Divine factor (⁹). On the onehand, because the truth of faith was given from above "once and forall to the saints" (Jude 1:3) and, on the other, because anysubsequent development of these truths in the conscience of thefaithful, expressed as a conscientious teaching and theology,continues to be accompanied always by the extraordinary attributes offaith. These prevent it from becoming assimilated, or even comparedwith, 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 isnatural to infer the moral and religious power and binding characterof dogma for the faithful, as a product and secondary notionof"authority" which is very close to the notion of "validity". If,however, this notion of "validity" stems from the transcendent originand source of dogma - to which its strength and sacredness can bemainly attributed- then both the nature of the truths of faith aswell as the nature of the human person nonetheless compel us toacknowledge the moral contribution of the human factor also in themanifestation and consolidation of the validity of dogma. Being inthe salvific, theandric or Divine human form, the human factor doesnot even remain neutral in the extraordinary process of irregularrevelation, nor in the subsequent task of sanctification and eternalsalvation towards which this aims.

In analysing the theandric nature understood in the light of thenature of the truths of the faith, namely the "synergy" of the Divineand human factors in the original manifestation as well as thefurther formulation of dogma, we mean that the truths of Divinerevelation are salvific principles of life, not simply neutraleducational material. This is precisely because the human person iscalled in freedom to acknowledge and confess that such principlescome from the God who speaks, and then to live responsibly accordingto them so that he or she may receive salvation in Christ. This isthe main reason why the faithful must be ready at every moment tosacrifice if necessary even their God-given and unique gift of lifefor the sake of the truth of the faith (martyrs-new martyrs). Thiswould otherwise rightfully be considered as the greatest sin in theworld, equal to suicide for which the Church refuses to give afuneral service, despite pressure to the contrary from socialmovements of recent times, and despite the fact that such a rulingdoes not apply even to the hardest criminal. (¹⁰)

That this synergy between the human and the divine is implied bythe nature of the human person is clearly obvious given the fact thatonly in freedom and in the related degree of responsibility is thehuman person realised and developed until the very last breath. For,the nature of the person is by definition "ecstatic" which, accordingto the etymology of this term in Greek, means to "go out of one'sself'. (¹¹)

From the viewpoint of the Divine and human factors alone, it ispossible to evaluate correctly the importance of the following vitalecclesiological realities at least. It is on the basis of theserealities that the human-Divine validity of dogma is based and,through these, it is uninterruptedly maintained from generation togeneration, viz·. -(a) the Divine inspiration of Holy Scripture; (b) the infallibility of the Church; (c) Apostolicsuccession; (d) worship and popular piety in general; and (e) theblood of the martyrs shed for the faith.

Not one of these great ecclesiological realities could possibly bestudied or correctly interpreted as a phenomenon which has aninspiration and inclination purely from on high, monophysitically. Ithas more to do with an essential synergy of the Divine and humanfactors in the full scope and depth of these functions in the life ofthe Church. It is therefore imperative that we develop these ideashere. The first two truths (a) and (b) require no furtherexplanation, other than what Orthodoxy teaches today in its dogmaticmanuals in response to other denominations, especially from themiddle of this century. when with God's blessing, a Patristic renewalcommenced. Indeed, as a result, it is now possible for fundamentaldogmatic truths to be sensitively reformulated in theologicallanguage which is more genuinely Orthodox. Previously the Orthodoxthemselves had used a language which belonged rather to scholastictheology or to irreverent rationalism, since most of theirtheologians had more or less been unconsciously influenced by westernuniversities where postgraduate studies were undertaken.

At this point it should be said very briefly that those thingswhich relate to the Divine inspiration of Holy Scripture in general,despite the honest efforts up until now to state the axiomaticOrthodox positions and the proper hermeneutical criteria of mostOrthodox biblical scholars, have not yet been presented in such adynamic theological synthesis that they can be counted rightfully andequally among the wonders of God's love which occur according toDivine economy in each historical period. We only hint at these,mainly in worship services, when we exclaim: "God is wonderous amongHis saints" (Ps. 68:35). Yet in such an anticipated panoramicsynthesis, it is certain that the entire Orthodox theory on Divineinspiration shall not merely avoid the extremities of some hereticalpositions such as verbal or word for word inspiration on the one handand the complete divesting of Holy Scripture's transcendent characteron the other. It will also use ample proof to make clear thatirregular Divine inspiration belongs organically to the Church, notonly because it alone could define and recognise the canon of theauthentic biblical texts, but more importantly because biblicalrevelation in itself was recorded by the Church and in the Church.Therefore only in the Church, and in the "communion of the HolySpirit" unceasingly guaranteed therein, is it possible for Scriptureto be interpreted properly, that is to say authentically, as the wordof God.

Similarly, one could say that the infallibility of the Church hasbeen sufficiently articulated, at least as far as the major aspectsof the related theological issues are concerned. There have been,however, - and there probably still are - individual Orthodoxtheologians who, while otherwise well meaning, have the strangebelief that the term "infallibility" reeks of western influence andexpresses a so-called institutionalised legalism(¹²). However, itmust be emphasised very strongly that much has yet to be said andpublished, mainly with regard to the remaining ecclesiologicalrealities, points (c), (d) and (e), and their deeper contribution tothe Theanthropic validity of dogma which is continuously beingverified anew.

Of course, this is not the appropriate place to present in broaderterms the ecclesiological principles which have been mentioned inother more popularised articles (¹³). Nonetheless, several thingsabout them must be presented in general terms in order to show theirgreat importance in establishing the validity of dogma which is theissue at hand.

First of all, it is necessary to develop further the implicationsof Apostolic succession which one could justifiably call the"chromosomes" or the guarantee of the identity and continuity of thetrue Church in time and space. This is even more necessary todaywhen, due mainly to the worldwide association of Christians throughthe ecumenical movement, there is the direct danger that thetheological senses will become so carelessly blunted that they willbe unable to diagnose or recognise the authentic features implied insuch a central and neuralgic ecclesiological term (¹⁴). Inparticular, one could consider the Bishop, the distinct andhistorical figure within the entire body of the Church, through whomall the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the other parts are, by the graceof God, communicated, activated and perpetuated, thereby manifestingthe One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in the world. Nomisinterpretation or quick judgement is permitted concerning thisGod-given institution which responsibly and with full measure(plenitudo potestatis) embodies the authentic successor of theApostles in the midst of the people of God, but which is sometimesunfortunately attacked by naive or malicious accusers as being asupposedly impious remnant of outdated despotism or medievalabsolutism(¹⁵).

The countless patristic testimonies to the purely Christocentric -or perhaps it would be more theologically accurate to sayChristological-nature of the Episcopal function in the Church, whichdescribe the Bishop as being in the "place and form of Christ", theone who presides over the Lord's Supper and, by extension, over allof the eucharistic community of the faithful rather than just instrictly liturgical settings and worship, are a great scandal for therational mind. For indeed, only the "foolishness of the cross"(1Cor.l:18) could possibly overlook the claims derived from so-callednatural law concerning the absolute equality of all people. Accordingto this, it would be impossible to acknowledge that one person hasthe right to be considered the regulatory factor for the authenticityand prosperity of institutions and functions of free persons gatheredinto the communion of the faithful, even if this is done in the nameof the "mystical body" of Christ.

To refute these arguments, we must briefly remind ourselves ofbasic aspects of the teaching of the Church concerning the role ofthe Bishop. First and foremost, we need to underline certainastounding truths which can be easily derived from the liturgicalpractice surrounding the ordination of the Bishop. Thus the generalconviction and teaching that the Bishops in the Church are "by thegrace of God" successors of the twelve Apostles themselves who placedthem in various regions as the unmistakable and visible head of thelocal Church, is eloquently commented upon and interpreted by theordination service. This, moreover, is clearly distinct from theliturgical content of the corresponding services for the other tworanks of priesthood (Presbyter and Deacon). In the case of theordination of a Presbyter or Deacon, no public statement andconfession of faith is required apart from that which is given by allmembers of the Church during their baptism. The candidate isguaranteed to the Church by his Bishop following his own wish andrequest. On the other hand, although the candidate for the Episcopaloffice in the initial stage does not have the right to submit apetition, since the Church alone - and only through the Holy Synod -can take such an initiative and make this decision, the entireresponsibility is then transferred publicly to the elected candidate,who must make an official and lengthy confession of faith during thesacred moment of his ordination.

It is especially significant that, after the newly ordained Bishoprecites the Creed, he is invited to "confess" and declare the faith"more broadly" in the midst of the Church, as if unreservedlyaccepting with an oath everything and everyone that the Church hasever accepted through its Ecumenical Councils, while rejecting andanathematising, with the same decisiveness, that which the Councilshave condemned for all time. Taking into account the concludingverification that one who is ordained a Bishop shall keep all thesethings "until his last breath", it is obvious that he submits andeven identifies his own conscience for a lifetime with the voice andconscience of the Church, infallibly spoken through the EcumenicalCouncils. The Bishop is officially "offered" as the person whoempties himself more than anybody else in faithful obedience to theChurch militant, in accordance with the example of the incarnate andonly 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 isinferred from this mystic parallel, if not from the identityaccording to Grace. By analogy and by virtue of the mystical parallelthat exists, all that Christ rightfully proclaimed about Himself bysaying "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 whohas absolutely become a servant of the Church, somehow automaticallybecomes the Father of all the faithful. Only through such obedienceand kenosis can one understand and accept thereafter thesupreme responsibility and authority recognised in him by the Church.Unfortunately, the legal vocabulary of canon law has not managed toexpress this in a more suitable or effective term than the scholasticplenitudo potestatis borrowed from the west. The entirespiritual force of the Episcopal office is found in the Evangelicallaw that "my power is made perfect in weakness" (2Cor. 12:9) and"when I am weak, then I am strong" (2Cor.12:10). It could not havebeen otherwise, since the role of the Bishop is mainly described inthe New Testament as a "ministry of conciliation".

If through the Divine inspiration of Scripture, the infallibilityof the Church and Apostolic succession there has been a sufficientlybroad recognition on the part of the faithful of their importance indirectly and substantially contributing to the Divine-human validityof dogma, we are not able to say the same about worship, popularpiety and martyrdom. On the contrary, the dominant impression is thatthe validity of dogma - which it has of itself - is in fact the chiefcause and creative force in the development of worship and all facetsof personal or collective piety, as well as of Christian martyrdom.Yet, without for a moment questioning the power and formativeinfluence of dogma on all activities of the people of God, we mustalso emphasise the reverse effect. For one cannot overlook thewitnessing which each generation of the faithful has given throughoutthe centuries to the truth and sacredness of the very dogma whichthey live out. Is this not the value of witnessing which is declaredby God when He emphatically calls all people to this? Is this not themeaning 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 topopular piety, are not determined by personal desires or according toprevailing secular fashions, but rather by strictly traditionalguidelines so that all things sing together - as equal expressions ofthe one faith - in the confession and praise of the Trinitarian God.Given this fact, it is even clearer that worship, and the power ofvarious traditions and customs, are a further affirmation of theDivine-human validity of dogma.

If all of this is true for the harmless and, so to speak, regularand collective witness of the host of faithful who areecclesiastically gathered together, one can appreciate how muchgreater the moral force and witness the blood of the Martyrs andConfessors of the faith must be. Undeniable proof of this of courseis the fact that, very early, the blood of martyrdom was consideredby the Church as being an equally valid path of salvation as thesacrament of Baptism. The purifying and salvific power of martyrdomas a "font of rebirth" was apparently pointed out by God who saidthrough the prophet: "let them bring their witnessesto justify them. and let them say " It istrue'" ( Isaiah 43:9). Of course it is not without specialsignificance that this statement highlights something more wonderous,namely that the blood of Martyrs is sufficient to justify" not onlythemselves, but also all the faithful who are with and among them.However, we must immediately add that such a "justification" of theOld Testament should not be confused with the ultimate justification,sanctification and salvation which are through Christ, and His bloodalone.

In summarising all that has been examined with regard to thatwhich is officially consecrated, but also with less apparent mysticalsources which perpetually "irrigate" Church dogma, so that the faithwill always be alive and victorious over the world, it must be statedin conclusion that, only through a correct evaluation of allsacramental parameters made with the fear of God, is the Church ofGod indeed proven to be the "communion of the created with theUncreated by grace. without confusion or division. for the salvationof the created and the glory of the Uncreated"(¹⁶).