Thread by @PatrologyVotary

A thread on question 1 of the Confession of Dositheus 🧵
In recent years more people have become aware of the Eastern Orthodox Church’s historical confessional and catechetical documents.
This material, obscured by 20th century “neo-patristics”, is good to know.
Yet there are…

…some issues that have arisen, due to ignorance either of the terminology being used or the contexts in which certain documents were written.
In the last year or so some online Protestant apologists have latched onto a particular passage of an EO confession as evidence that…

…the EOC is anti-lay Bible reading, wants to suppress scripture, etc.
This thread will analyse the text and provide its historical context.
We are speaking of Question 1 in the Confession of Dositheus, subsequent to the decrees contained therein.
See attached image.

We must begin with the context.

Following the fall of Constantinople in 1453 the Orthodox Church had been isolated and, for the former Byzantines, placed under the Turkish yoke. Standards of learning greatly declined and they faced proselytism by the Roman Catholics.

Whole regions were being split over the issue of Uniatism (joining Rome), combined with the upheavals in Russia and the expansion of the Turks during the 16th century.
Then the Reformation appeared on the radar and the EOs had to figure that out as well.

It was a very difficult 200 years, exacerbated by the explosive growth of the Jesuits and their controversial tactics.
EO clergy went to the West to be educated, imbibing western forms of thought, used either to try to defend their faith, or as the catalyst for uniatism.

Battles were fought, dynasties overthrown, great ideological slinging contests occurred.
Martyrs and saints everywhere.
This was the state of affairs in the early 17th century.
During this time, Russian and Eastern European regimes began to see the benefits of westernisation…

…and so western influence grew even more.
EO bishops and theologians saw the need not only to be defensive but to use the western tools in an intelligent way on the offensive against Papal and Protestant error.
On the negative side of things, this caused some EOs to feel…

…politically pressured to “pick a side” between the two western factions and align more closely with one or the other.
On the positive side the greatest EO minds of the time, particularly in Russia, began to construct western-style schools to educate clergy, promote the use…

…of Latin and the dissemination of Renaissance thought, etc.
This was done in a controlled manner to increase the standards of learning and allow EOs to go toe to toe intellectually with the West.
It was a huge success, and this was the time when the EOC began to produce…

…individual + conciliar catechisms and confessions of faith.
The Council of Jerusalem in 1672 was called to rule in an authoritative manner on the aforementioned “pick a side” attitudes that the religio-social pressures were encouraging.

In the early 17th century one of the Patriarchs of Constantinople (and formerly Alexandria), Cyril Lucaris, having studied in Italy, became influenced by Reformed Theology.
Initially this only influenced him to take an extremely anti-Roman stance, but after he became Patriarch…

…of Alexandria and renewed contacts with Protestant Europe, writings began to appear in his name that showed distinctly Reformed thought.
This culminated in a Confession of 1629 which was an unmistakably Reformed document in Eastern language.

During this time there was great consternation about Jesuitical opposition to EO printing presses and schools, fuelling anti-Roman sentiments.
Lucaris’ Confession only slowly gained notice since it was originally published in Latin. Once translated into Greek,…

…and 2 local councils in 1638 and 1642 met to confute it.
There was uncertainty about whether Lucaris actually authored the confession or whether he was simply incredibly negligent not to refute the works associated with him due to his Protestant connections.

Either way it was a very bad look.
Peter Mogila, the great Metropolitan of Kiev, composed his lauded catechism in 1640 at the request of various Orthodox Churches, which was received and revised by the 1642 council.
The controversy did not die down, and so…

…the 1672 Jerusalem Synod was convened.
It was the first time the EOC had collectively addressed Protestantism in anything resembling a systematic manner.
But in opposing Reformed theology it also avoided ceding ground to Roman Catholicism despite using Western forms.

Now all of this was background but I hope you can appreciate why this complexity is necessary to outline.
The council was basically the EOC using the language of the Western disputes to define where it stands and tell both sides to shove it.

*That* is the context of the Confession of Dositheus, which was the chief document that came out of the council aside from the acts and sessions.

So the confession was written to combat Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, and the influence of Jesuit missionaries.

It’s about protecting EO identity, not about regulating/defining wholesale practices.
The guideline regarding the laity reading scripture is all about regulating proper teaching and understanding within the context of unbalanced and improper interpretation,…

…and the fact that the unlearned can be taken advantage of (big problem re the Jesuits back then).
The Council says that those who have not inquired into the deep things of the Spirit, have not been instructed how to read and search them properly,…

…should not read the scriptures by themselves but hear them corporately in the appropriate ecclesiastical context.
This is a safeguard against go-it-alone Christianity among the unlearned and unprepared that produces confusion.

And remember, for most of history that’s how the majority of people encountered scripture; hearing it red in synagogue or church.
The EOC regains its liturgical emphasis, and in the early modern period was far slower on the uptake of the printing press etc.

There are numerous exhortations among Eastern Orthodox elders and theologians to read scripture.
The Confession does not deny the laity should read scripture, it says they can hear it read, and once they meet the basic qualifications they can read scripture and benefit from it.

Peter in the New Testament talks about how unstable and I learned people twist Paul’s writings.
I don’t think I need to explain how the book of Revelation and certain Old Testament texts have been misused. The ancient Jews forbade people from reading certain Old Testament books…

…on their own until they were a certain age or had acquired a certain degree of proficiency; this is not a new thing.
Add the aforementioned context of Jesuit teaching and Protestant influence re Sola Scriptura, and you can see why the regulation was put in place.

It’s about the principles.
And I can say from experience that this is indeed applied.
When I went through catechesis there was initial emphasis on liturgical experience and hearing the word read rather than seeking Ortho Bible translations to read at home.

Then later, with evaluation of knowledge and spiritual maturity over time, guidance was given on interpretation while reading.

There are some people for whom unguided reading scripture benefits them nothing, and can bring harm on those whom they mislead.

Those people would be better off receiving sound instruction from orthodox Christians, hearing the word proclaimed, before they engage in private reading.
Dositheus does not give a blanket negative answer to whether Christians should read scripture, it gives prudential…

…guidelines in regard to those liable to be led astray by their own wiles.
“Me and my Bible” Christianity has had disastrous consequences; even Protestants admit this.
The Orthodox Church through her saints has always highly upheld the reading of scripture by the laity.

See this exhortation as an example:

https://twitter.com/habemusmalleum/status/1649978890994036736

For additional support of the interrogation that the Confession deals with necessary oversight rather than prohibiting all lay reading, please see this article by Craig Truglia where he examines a later translation of the Confession: orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2022/12/17/con…