"The Oxford Handbook of the Bible in Orthodox Christianity" on The Confession of Dositheus

It should not be a controversial thing to say the Confession of Dositheus absolutely forbids the reading of Scripture by all laymen. The words of the confession are quite plain on the matter. The Oxford Handbook of the Bible in Orthodox Christianity mentions the Confession of Dositheus on this matter in two places.

Dositheos also expanded the biblical canon, and imitating the Council of Trent, he called the Septuagint additions canonical books (Pentiuc 2014, 128). He also responded to the Loukarean thesis regarding the private reading of the Scripture by claiming that Divine Scriptures:

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 in fine read. (Karmires 1953, 768; translation: Leith 1963, 506)

Recently, Belezos (2020, 68) has stressed that the Dosithean confession does not introduce a general prohibition of the private reading of the Scripture in the vernacular. Instead, Dositheos promotes three criteria for a properly Orthodox interpretation and transmission of the Bible: (1) the respect to the patristic interpretation, (2) the ecclesial experience, and (3) the illumination of the Spirit. Accordingly, the exclusive priority belongs neither to Scripture (sola scriptura) nor the ecclesial authorities (magisterium) but to the Holy Spirit that inspired the biblical authors and holds the Church together. Belezos’s claims demonstrate that Dositheos not only imitated Tridentine Catholicism but also tried to consider the traditional Byzantine theology (Russell 2013, 82). However, Loukaris also stressed the role of the Spirit. Therefore, the emphasis on the role of the Spirit in Dositheos’s strange position does not solve its problematic character. This prohibition can be explained only from the perspective of Dositheus’s passion for defending Orthodoxy. This passion led him to a decision with no parallel in the history of eastern Christianity (Georgi 1941, 56).

pg. 283

The author of this essay, Athanathios Despotis, calls this prohibition "problematic" and "with no parallel in the history of eastern Christianity."

The second place where the Confession of Dositheus' prohibition of the Christian laity reading Scripture is discussed says the following. 

In the wake of the Protestant Reformation and an emphasis on individual reading and study of Scripture, the Orthodox Church issued several official pronouncements against private biblical study. In 1672, the Synod of Jerusalem issued what is commonly known as the Confession of Dositheus as a rebuttal to various Calvinist positions. One particular issue that was raised in the Confession of Dositheus is directly relevant to the discussion of critical study of Scripture among Orthodox. The following appears in the form of a question and answer in the Confession of Dositheus:

Question #1: Should the Divine Scriptures be read commonly by all Christians? 

Response: No. We know that all Scripture is divinely inspired and beneficial, and in this way has in it what is necessary, so that without it, it is impossible to be pious at all. Nevertheless, it should not be read by all, but only by those who with the proper investigation have inquired into the depths of the Spirit, and who know which ways the divine Scripture should to be investigated and taught, and generally read. But to those who are not trained and indifferent, or who understand only literally, or in any other way what is contained in the Scriptures that is foreign to piety, the catholic Church, knowing by experience the damage caused, does not permit its legitimate reading. It is permitted to every pious person to hear the Scripture so that that person may believe with the heart unto righteousness, and confess with the mouth unto salvation. But to read certain parts of Scripture, and especially the Old Testament, is prohibited for the aforementioned reasons and others similar to them. To order untrained persons not to read all of sacred Scripture is the same thing as restricting infants from touching solid food.

This statement on the reading and interpretation of Scripture was repeated almost verbatim in 1723 in An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by prominent bishops, among whom were Patriarch Jeremiah III of Constantinople, Patriarch Athanasius IV of Antioch, and Patriarch Chrysanthos of Jerusalem. These Church pronouncements prohibited the reading of Scripture generally by all Orthodox Christians, except “by those who with the proper investigation have inquired into the depths of the Spirit, and who know which ways the divine Scripture should to be investigated and taught, and generally read.” The Confession of Dositheus and the Exposition of 1723 also give special emphasis to Orthodox Christians being prohibited from reading “certain parts of Scripture, but especially the Old Testament.” These Church pronouncements assert that Orthodox Christians in general are permitted to hear the Scriptures in church where they are to “believe with the heart unto righteousness, and confess with the mouth unto salvation.” In their approach to Scripture, these Church pronouncements emphasize that it is essential for Orthodox Christians to hear, believe, and confess, but not to read Scripture. Moreover, nothing is said about the necessity of Orthodox Christians understanding the Scriptures. Indeed, in the response to Question #2 in the Confession of Dositheus as well as in the Exposition of 1723, it is asserted that only those “trained in wisdom and holiness” can understand the content of Scripture.

Despite these restrictions, the desire for general reading of Scripture by Orthodox and the influence of historical criticism began to be felt slowly in Greece in the 1830s.

pg. 323-324

This author, John Fotopoulos, notes that Dositheus' approach to scripture was an emphasis on the laity hearing and believing without reading or understanding the Scriptures being of any necessity. The prohibition of reading the Scripture "was repeated almost verbatim" in An Orthodox Exposition of the Faith published in 1723. Here is a translation from 1865. The citation is on pages 87 and 88.  

https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=lI0QAAAAIAAJ&pg=PP15&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=1#v=onepage&q&f=false

Fotopoulos then goes on to note that "these restrictions" have basically been ignored. A long dissertation follows unpacking that observation. 

Is it any wonder Dositheus' prohibition of reading Scripture by the laity has been ignored? It is not only utterly absurd to deny the laity the right to read the Word of God but, as previously noted, it is without precedent in the history of Eastern Christianity. One only needs to read Chrysostom, the great preacher of Constantinople, to see he constantly berated his parishioners for being ignorant of the Scriptures and implored them to read them.

And yet, not only was this prohibition repeated at least twice in official and confessional Orthodox documents, it has never been overturned. The Confession of Dositheus, along with its prohibition of the laity from reading Scripture, remains in force to this day.

The Catechism of the Eastern Orthodox Church Contradicts the Confession of Dositheus

The Confession of Dositheus declares in no uncertain terms faith is not trust in Jesus Christ but a right notion of God and divine things. 

We believe no one to be saved without faith. And by faith we mean the right notion that is in us concerning God and divine things, which, working by love, that is to say, by [observing] the Divine commandments, justifieth us with Christ; and without this [faith] it is impossible to please God.

http://catholicity.elcore.net/ConfessionOfDositheus.html

The Longer Catechism of The Eastern Orthodox Church written by Metropolitan Philaret teaches a wholly different doctrine. 

http://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/Orthodox_Catechism_of_Philaret.htm

Examined and Approved by the Most Holy Governing Synod, and Published for the Use of Schools, and of all Orthodox Christians, by Order of His Imperial Majesty (Moscow, at the Synodical Press, 1830.)

[The large Russian Catechism of Philaret, approved by the holy Synod (although omitted by Kimmel in his Collection, and barely mentioned by Gass in his Greek Symbolics), is now the most authoritative doctrinal standard of the orthodox Græco-Russian Church, and has practically superseded the older Catechism, or Orthodox Confession of Mogila.

This catechism has the full authority of the Orthodox Church. It was "examined and approved by the Most Holy Governing Synod." Here is the definition of faith given in this catechism.

6. What is faith? 

According to the definition of St. Paul, Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Heb. xi. 1); that is, a trust in the unseen as though it were seen, in that which is hoped and waited for as if it were present. 

7. What is the difference between knowledge and faith? 

Knowledge has for its object things visible and comprehensible; faith, things which are invisible, and even incomprehensible. Knowledge is founded on experience, on examination of its object; but faith on belief of testimony to truth. Knowledge belongs properly to the intellect, although it may also act on the heart; faith belongs principally to the heart, although it is imparted through the intellect. 

8. Why is faith, and not knowledge only, necessary in religious instruction? 

Because the chief object of this instruction is God invisible and incomprehensible, and the wisdom of God hidden in a mystery; consequently, many parts of this learning can not be embraced by knowledge, but may be received by faith.

Philaret contrasts faith and knowledge rather than conflate them. That is in stark opposition to the Confession of Dositheus which equates faith with knowledge.

Moreover the Confession of Dositheus rejects the notion that we are to lay hold on the righteousness of Christ and apply it to ourselves for salvation.

But [the notion] that faith fulfilling the function of a hand layeth hold on the righteousness which is in Christ, and applieth it unto us for salvation, we know to be far from all Orthodoxy

The catechism contradicts this point. 

208.  How does the death of Jesus Christ upon the cross deliver us from sin, the curse, and death? 

That we may the more readily believe this mystery, the Word of God teaches us of it, so much as we may be able to receive, by the comparison of Jesus Christ with Adam. Adam is by nature the head of all mankind, which is one with him by natural descent from him. Jesus Christ, in whom the Godhead is united with manhood, graciously made himself the new almighty Head of men, whom he unites to himself through faith. Therefore as in Adam we had fallen under sin, the curse, and death, so we are delivered from sin, the curse, and death in Jesus Christ. His voluntary suffering and death on the cross for us, being of infinite value and merit, as the death of one sinless, God and man in one person, is both a perfect satisfaction to the justice of God, which had condemned us for sin to death, and a fund of infinite merit, which has obtained him the right, without prejudice to justice, to give us sinners pardon of our sins, and grace to have victory over sin and death.

This article does not say in the exact words that we are to lay hold of the righteousness of Christ and apply to ourselves for salvation. But that is the meaning of the words. We are untied to Christ by faith, which has been defined as trust. The catechism says the suffering and death of one sinless is "a perfect satisfaction to the justice of God" "to give us sinners pardon of our sins." What else is that other than applying the righteousness of Christ by faith to ourselves for salvation?

That is a completely different doctrine than what is taught in the Confession of Dositheus. The question is why does this authoritative catechism "Examined and Approved by the Most Holy Governing Synod" have a different definition of salvation and a different response to trusting in the righteousness of Jesus Christ?

The Confession of Dositheus Remains Authoritative

I was engaging with Orthodox believers on Twitter about the Confession of Dositheus and its prohibition on reading the Bible when someone claimed that parts of the Confession had actually been repudiated by various synods. 

https://twitter.com/JYLewis3/status/1733632063470018592

Parts of it were repudiated in later synods doesn't mean we throw everything out. It was too westernized in language. Fr. Trenham is great. He is not authoritative.

I asked him which synods repudiated parts of the Confession of Dositheus and was promptly blocked. That is par for the course for Orthobros. He also commented that the Confession of Dositheus is not "completely authoritative."

https://twitter.com/JYLewis3/status/1733625463866847372

Also per Trisgonfilms if you email them they will break it down. It isn't even completely authoritative. We don't blindly read councils and confessions etc. Outside the interpretative lens of the church.

Blindly reading scripture without spiritual guidance can be unadvisable

The fact is he is wrong. The Confession of Dositheus is both authoritative and normative. There have been no synods which have repudiated a single word of the confession. This is attested to by Michael Pomazansky in his book Orthodox Dogmatics.

The interpretations of the Symbol of Faith, or the "Symbolic Guides" (from the Greek symballo, meaning "to unite;" symbolon, a uniting or conditional sign) of the Orthodox Faith, in the common meaning of this term, are those expositions of Christian faith which are given in the Book of Canons of the Holy Apostles, the Holy Local and Ecumenical Councils, and the Holy Fathers. The theology of the Russian Church also makes use, as symbolical books, of those two expositions of the Faith which in more recent times were evoked by the need to present the Orthodox Christian teaching against the teaching of the unorthodox confessions of the second millennium. These books are: The Confession of the Orthodox Faith compiled by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Dositheus, which was read and approved at the Council of Jerusalem in 1672 and, fifty years later, in answer to the inquiry received from the Anglican Church, was sent to that church in the name of all the Eastern Patriarchs and is therefore more widely known under the name of "The Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith." 

http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/dogmatics_pomazansky.htm

Here he notes that the Confession is a symbolical book which presents an Orthodox exposition of the faith against unorthodox confessions. 

In a catechism published in 2006 His Eminence Panteleimon Lampadario notes that the Confession of Dositheus embodies Apostolic Tradition.  

Question 15: What sources embodied Apostolic Tradition?

Answer: The oral and living Teachings of the Holy Apostles that were passed down by word of mouth, began to differentiate from Holy Scripture during the second century. This comprised the Apostolic Tradition that was recorded and embodied within:

(a) The official interpretations of Scripture.
(b) The Symbols or Confessions of Faith. The interpretations of the Symbol of Faith of the Orthodox Church, in the common meaning of this term, are those expositions of the Christian Faith which are given in the:

1 - Books of Canons of the Holy Apostles.
2 - The Holy Local and Ecumenical Councils.
3 - The Holy Fathers.
4 - The Confession of the Orthodox Faith, compiled by Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem in 1672.
5 - The Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, compiled by Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem in 1732.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MJAhPmagwm2jji1x86Es3fRCuvg3Ctzm/view?pli=1

Along with Pomazansky His Eminence Panteleimon Lampadario also calls the Confession of Dositheus an exposition of the Christian Faith. 

Likewise, Bishop Kallistos Ware lists the confession amongst the Chief Orthodox Doctrinal Statements. 

While the doctrinal decisions of general councils are infallible, those of a local council or an individual bishop are always liable to error; but if such decisions are accepted by the rest of the Church, then they come to acquire Ecumenical authority (i.e. a universal authority similar to that possessed by the doctrinal statements of an Ecumenical Council). The doctrinal decisions of an Ecumenical Council cannot be revised or corrected, but must be accepted in their entirety; but the Church has often been selective in its treatment of the acts of local councils: in the case of the seventeenth-century councils, for example, their statements of faith have in part been received by the whole Orthodox Church, but in part set aside or corrected.

The following are the chief Orthodox doctrinal statements since 787:

1. The Encyclical Letter of St Photius (867).

2. The First Letter of Michael Cerularius to Peter of Antioch (1054).

3. The decisions of the Councils of Constantinople in 1341 and 1351 on the Hesychast Controversy. The Encyclical Letter of St Mark of Ephesus (1440 – 1).

4. The Confession of Faith by Gennadius, Patriarch of Constantinople (1455 – 6).

5. The Replies of Jeremias II to the Lutherans (1573 – 81).

6. The Confession of Faith by Metrophanes Kritopoulos (1625).

7. The Orthodox Confession by Peter of Moghila, in its revised form (ratified by the Council of Jassy, 1642).

8. The Confession of Dositheus (ratified by the Council of Jerusalem, 1672).

9. The Answers of the Orthodox Patriarchs to the Non-Jurors (1718,1723).

10. The Reply of the Orthodox Patriarchs to Pope Pius IX (1848).

11. The Reply of the Synod of Constantinople to Pope Leo XIII (1895).

  12.The Encyclical Letters by the Patriarchate of Constantinople on Christian unity and on  the ‘Ecumenical Movement' (1920, 1952).

The Orthodox Church, pg. 197.

Note that Ware writes "in the case of the seventeenth-century councils, for example, their statements of faith have in part been received by the whole Orthodox Church, but in part set aside or corrected." That would include the Confession of Dositheus but he does not indicate anywhere in his book that any section of that confession has been set aside or corrected.

If the Confession of Dositheus is a faithful exposition of Orthodoxy how could any of it be repudiated? By default it would have to be accepted by everyone. To repudiate it means the Council of Jerusalem which ratified it gave their approval to a document which does not accurately convey Orthodox beliefs. 

An Error in the Confession of Peter Mogila Concerning the Sabbath

In 1642 Peter Mogila wrote a Confession of Faith which has stood the test of time and is used to this day for instruction in the Eastern Orthodox Church

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petro_Mohyla

However this confession has an error in it.

In part 3 question 60 Peter writes that in the 91st canon of the sixth ecumenical council we are told how to worship on the Lord's Day.

The Orthodox Confession of St Peter Mogila

Now, after what manner the Lord’s day ought to be observed the sixth General Council teacheth in the ninety-first canon. Moreover, another cause of transferring the Sabbath to the Lord’s Day is this, namely, that Christ is Lord of the Sabbath, according to the Scripture (Matt. 12.8), For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath-day. If, therefore, Christ be Lord of the Sabbath, then surely the Sabbath is with great reason transferred to the Lord’s Day, both because Christ might not seem to be in any subjection thereunto, and also because on that day, and none other, did Christ arise from the dead: Whereby the World, as to its eternal salvation, was renewed and restored.

There are two problems here. The first, for the causal reader who may not be familiar with the ecumenical councils, is that neither the fifth nor the sixth councils promulgated any canons. Instead the Quinisext council filled that gap. 

The Quinisext Council, i.e. the Fifth-Sixth Council, often called the Council in Trullo, Trullan Council, or the Penthekte Synod, was a church council held in 692 at Constantinople under Justinian II. It is known as the "Council in Trullo" because, like the Sixth Ecumenical Council, it was held in a domed hall in the Imperial Palace (τρούλος meaning a cup or dome). Both the Fifth and the Sixth Ecumenical Councils had omitted to draw up disciplinary canons, and as this council was intended to complete both in this respect, it took the name of Quinisext.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinisext_Council

That may not be an error per se but it does need clarification.

The second error is that the correct reference is not to the 91st canon but to the 90th.

Canon 91:

As for women who furnish drugs for the purpose of procuring abortion, and those who take foetus-killing poisons, they are made subject to the penalty prescribed for murderers.

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0835/_P4J.HTM

Canon 90:

We have received it canonically from our God-bearing Fathers not to bend the knee on Sundays when honoring the Resurrection of Christ, since this observation may not be clear to some of us, we are making it plain to the faithful, so that after the entrance of those in holy orders into the sacrificial altar on the evening of the Saturday in question, let none of them bend a knee until the evening of the following Sunday, when, after the entrance during the Lychnic, again bending knees, we thus begin offering our prayers to the Lord. For inasmuch as we hare received it that the night succeeding Saturday was the precursor of our Savior’s rising, we commence our hymns at this point spiritually, ending the festival by passing out of darkness into light, in order that we may hence celebrate en masse the Resurrection for a whole day and a whole night.

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0835/_P4I.HTM

Canon 91 forbids the procurement of drugs for an abortion while canon 90 discusses how  the Lord's Day is to be observed. How has this error gone overlooked for 380 years?