17.

 What source does the textbook omit in this discussion which ought to have been included, since it is the only source of the correct interpretation of Scripture?

            First, any discussion of the Byzantine period of Church history would have to include — in addition to the heresies and the Ecumenical Councils that repudiated them — a discussion of Holy Scripture itself. It was during this period that the books of the Bible as we know them today were produced in the Orthodox Church. That is, of the numerous copies of various Scriptures then in existence, including many false “scriptures,” Scripture was canonized from among the writings of the Apostles and early disciples. As Fr. John Whiteford explains:

The primary purpose in the Church's establishing an authoritative list of books which were to be received as Sacred Scripture was to protect the Church from spurious books which claimed Apostolic authorship, but were in fact the work of heretics, such as the “Gospel of Thomas.” Heretical groups could not base their teachings on Holy Tradition because their teachings originated from outside the Church. So the only way they could claim any authoritative basis for their heresies was to twist the meaning of Scriptures and to forge new books in the names of the Apostles or Old Testament saints.

In establishing an authoritative list of sacred books that were received by all as being divinely inspired and of genuine Old Testament or Apostolic origin, the Church did not intend to imply that all of the Christian faith and all information necessary for worship and good order in the Church was contained in these writings. In fact, by the time the Church settled the canon of Scripture, it was already, in its faith and worship, essentially indistinguishable from the Church of later periods. This is an historic certainty. As for the structure of Church authority, it was Orthodox bishops, gathered together in various Councils, who settled the question of the canon. The Church as we know it was in place before the Bible as we know it was in place [Sola Scriptura: an Orthodox Analysis of the Cornerstone of Reformation Theology, pp. 11-12; emphasis added].

            Secondly, it was during this period that the Holy Fathers explained Scripture. Although the textbook does not mention this development, it is an immensely important one in the history of the Church, for the Fathers are the only source of the correct interpretation of Scripture.

            As the textbook gives short shrift to the Fathers, this subject requires further comment. St. Justin Martyr (+165), the leading Christian apologist of the second century, explicitly equates the Holy Fathers with the Holy Apostles. He writes that:

Among them, in essence, there is no difference: the same God-Man Christ lives, acts, enlivens and makes them all eternal in equal measure.

Also concerning the Holy Fathers, Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky explains that:

For guidance in questions of faith, for the correct understanding of Sacred Scripture, and in order to distinguish the authentic Tradition of the Church from false teachings, we appeal to the works of the Holy Fathers of the Church, acknowledging that the unanimous agreement of all the Fathers and teachers of the Church in teaching of the faith is an undoubted sign of truth. The Holy Fathers stood for the truth, fearing neither threats nor persecutions nor death itself. The patristic explanations of the truths of the faith 1) gave precision to the expression of the truths of Christian teaching and created a unity of dogmatic language; 2) added testimonies of these truths from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and also brought forth from them arguments based on reason. In theology, attention is also given to certain private opinions of the Holy Fathers or teachers of the Church on questions which have not been precisely defined and accepted by the whole Church. However, these opinions are not to be confused with dogmas, in the precise meaning of the word. There are some private opinions of certain Fathers and teachers which are not recognized as being in agreement with the general catholic faith of the Church, and are not accepted as a guide to faith [Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, pp. 37-38].

The True Church established by Christ rests upon the foundation of the Holy Apostles and the Holy Fathers, who are the Apostles' successors in nature and essence. As Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos explains, the Holy Fathers are the successors of the Holy Apostles not simply through the transmission of the grace of the priesthood, but because they themselves also reached the same experience as the Apostles.

            (Since chapter 8 answer 14 deals with the Apostle Peter's admonition that “no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation,” [2 Peter 1:20], the matter of the Holy Fathers' exegesis of Scripture will be explored in greater depth at that juncture).