Is Fr, Dr, Decan Ananias of Patristic Faith ashamed of the Confession of Dositheus? It would seem that way. Fr, John Whiteford published an article on the Patristic Faith website about how to select a good English translation of the Bible. I found that to be odd because the Confession of Dositheus explicitly prohibits the laity from reading the scriptures. So, I posted a comment in that regard and it never got approved.
 |
| https://www.patristicfaith.com/orthodox-christianity/an-orthodox-look-at-english-translations-of-the-bible/ |
It's really amazing how the Orthodox refuse to discuss the Confession of Dositheus and its absolute prohibition on reading the scriptures by the laity. If you bring it up they will block you and immediately end the discussion. It is completely disingenuous. Jay Dyer, who is a contributor at Patristic Faith and part of that whole online OrthoBro Pack which includes David Patrick Harry who also cannot handle opposing views, blocked me for the very reason that I asked about it.
It's odd because Fr. Josiah Trenham in his book Rock and Sand has the Confession of Dositheus at the end as Orthodoxy's official response to Protestantism, specifically Calvinism. That would seem to imply that the Confession of Dositheus is binding and normative to this day. If it is not then it's only an old curiosity like the 2nd canon from II Nicea which says:
Whoever is to be a bishop must know the Psalter by heart
Is every Bishop in the Church required to know the Psalter by heart in this day and age?
Recently I had a discussion about the Confession of Dositheus with an Orthodox priest on Twitter. Amazingly he was willing to talk about it. But eventually he decided to not continue the conversation. In this article I am going to post that conversation and give a brief analysis.
The conversation started when I posted a response to Fr. Dr. Deacon Ananias' tweet for the article about which English Bible translation to use.
just looking at this reminds me of this: http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/review_osb.aspx imagine being orthodox and being against Sola Scriptura and using what is essentially a protestant study bible!
That review was of the original Orthodox Study Bible, which was just the New Testament and Psalms. The current OSB clearly took some of those criticisms to heart. It is not a bad text, though it is not perfect either.
It is still fundamentally protestant in its entire scheme. The confession of dositheus forbids the laity from reading the scriptures in the vernacular.
He responded thusly:
This confession was written in a particular Greek speaking context, and to this day the Greek Orthodox are not big on vernacular translations, because they have the original text of the NT. However, St. John Chrysostom regularly taught that laity should read the Scriptures.
I am well aware that Chrysostom exhorts again and again for the laity to read the scriptures. So how is the CoD Orthodox? or maybe Chrysostom was wrong? In Seraphim Rose's bio we read that the Russians don't read the scriptures. Fr Josiah Trenham reprints the CoD in his book.That makes it appear that the contents of the CoD are binding to this day. There is more than just a prohibition of reading the scriptures in that text so I don't think you can brush it off as if it has a particular context and does not apply to us today.
He replied:
Just like any historical document, it has to be interpreted in its historical context. You can hardly argue that the Confession of Dositheus forbids the reading of Scripture by the laity, and argue that the Russian Church accepts its authority, when it has never taken it that way
So then what authority does the CoD have? Rose's bio shows the CoD in action. The CoD absolutley forbids the reading of scripture by the laity. Yet others ignore it. So what is the use of this confession and the synod of 1628 if everyone ignores it?
He replied:
The Confession has authority as it has been interpreted for the past several centuries... which is not the way you are suggestion it should be understood.
Is there any literature on the Synod of 1628 and its correct interpretation? Any sermons or discourses or anything like that?
I am not aware of any commentaries that have been translated into English, so we have to look to the course of performance... i.e. actual application.
Where can we find this application? I have already quoted from Rose's bio where the Russians are not reading the scriptures because they have the liturgy. And there is nothing like an OSB until mass Protestant conversions in the 80s.
His reply:
You find it in the history of the publication of editions of the Bible, and the active encouragement of the laity to read it. You find it when you read the classic "The Way of a Pilgrim"...you find it in Dostoyevsky's Novels, such as Crime and Punishment, which ends with a laymen reading the Gospel of John, and you find it in many other texts, such as "Missionary Conversations with Protestant Sectarians." Fr. Seraphim (Rose)'s biography has no great authority.
So how do the fictional Dounia and Raskolnikov have more weight for you than the actual situation of Russian Orthodox? I mean this issue of Biblical illiteracy is what prompted Rose on his Great Work and you are dismissing it.
My worldly goods are a knapsack with some dried bread in it on my back, and in my breast-pocket a Bible. And that is all.
Question 1
Should the Divine Scriptures be read in the vulgar tongue [common language] by all Christians?
No. Because all Scripture is divinely-inspired and profitable {cf. 2 Timothy 3:16}, we know, and necessarily so, that without [Scripture] it is impossible to be Orthodox at all. Nevertheless they should not be read by all, but only by those who with fitting research have inquired into the deep things of the Spirit, and who know in what manner the Divine Scriptures ought to be searched, and taught, and finally read. But to those who are not so disciplined, or who cannot distinguish, or who understand only literally, or in any other way contrary to Orthodoxy what is contained in the Scriptures, the Catholic Church, knowing by experience the damage that can cause, forbids them to read [Scripture]. Indeed, it is permitted to every Orthodox to hear the Scriptures, that he may believe with the heart unto righteousness, and confess with the mouth unto salvation {Romans 10:10}. But to read some parts of the Scriptures, and especially of the Old [Testament], is forbidden for these and other similar reasons. For it is the same thing to prohibit undisciplined persons from reading all the Sacred Scriptures, as to require infants to abstain from strong meats.
Question 2
Are the Scriptures plain to all Christians that read them?
If the Divine Scriptures were plain to all Christians that read them, the Lord would not have commanded such as desired to obtain salvation to search them; {John 5:39} and Paul would have said without reason that God had placed the gift of teaching in the Church; {1 Corinthians 13:28} and Peter would not have said of the Epistles of Paul that they contained some things hard to be understood. {2 Peter 3:16} It is evident, therefore, that the Scriptures are very profound, and their sense lofty; and that they need learned and divine men to search out their true meaning, and a sense that is right, and agreeable to all Scripture, and to its author the Holy Spirit.
Certainly, those that are regenerated [in Baptism] must know the faith concerning the Trinity, the incarnation of the Son of God, His passion, resurrection, and ascension into the heavens. Yet what concerns regeneration and judgment — for which many have not hesitated to die — it is not necessary, indeed impossible, for them to know what the Holy Spirit has made apparent only to those who are disciplined in wisdom and holiness.
No comments:
Post a Comment