By Newman Nahas
Introduction
In 1672, a local synod of the Jerusalem patriarchate meeting Bethlehem produced the Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem, commonly called the "Confession of Dositheus" after its presiding hierarch and author. It was a point-by-point rebuttal of the Calvinist "Confession of Cyril Lucaris" that had scandalized the Orthodox world.(Robertson 1899)
Eighteen years later, Dositheus published a revised edition of his Confession, admitting he had “written wrongly” in the earlier confession, explaining the need for correction, and even stating "where necessity requires, we shall remove or add certain other things that contribute to the accurate knowledge of the problem."(Dositheus 1690, 30).
This alone should end the debate as to whether the 1672 Confession was beyond correction. It was not, and Dositheus himself recognized this.
The Confession is significant and even authoritative, especially as to what it rejects. But significant does not mean without error.
Summary of Argument
First, dogmatic status is a function of reception (not just enactment) and the Confession was never received as a primary authority.
Second, to the extent the Confession had been received, its authority is limited to what it was received as: a polemical manual rebutting a Calvinist document, an exercise in the application of dogma (not a source of dogma itself).
France championed Roman Catholic interests; Holland championed the Calvinist cause. Both pressured the Eastern Patriarchs to produce statements favorable to them. The Confession of Dositheus emerged in this geopolitical pressure cooker.(Rene 2020, 124–128) As Kontouma notes, the Confession was produced to "satisfy the expectations of the very Catholic king of France—who is, in a certain way, the commissioner (le commanditaire)" of the work, through ambassador Nointel.(Kontouma 2016, 341)
"Dositheus complied willingly with the anti-Calvinist exercise requested by the ambassador of Louis XIV."(Kontouma 2016, 342) He later, though, laments that he felt some restraints in how sharply he was able to contrast his own view with that of Rome (rather than simply condemning the Calvinist views).
Nointel's agents used what appear to have been pre-written questionnaires and templates, distributed to Orthodox prelates for signature. The resulting documents during this era were, in Voulgaropoulou's assessment, "almost identical in matters of content and even articulation," raising "the question of whether the texts were drafted by some third party and then submitted to different agents to sign."(Voulgaropoulou 2023, 545)
Dositheus inherited a theological program from his predecessor Nektarios, who in 1663 had founded the Patriarchal Academy with the charter declaring: "neither to worship the pope through monstrous discourse, nor to think like Calvinists and Lutherans through the worship of shadows." (Kontouma 2016) Notably, this program was defined in terms of taking a position on issues that were arising between two external groups.
What is commonly called "the Confession of Dositheus" was not an autonomous or exhaustive dogmatic statement. It was part of a larger polemical work, the Shield of Orthodoxy, and it was structured as a point-by-point reply to the Calvinist confession of Lucaris.(Kontouma 2016, 351-352)(Kontouma 2016, 363)
Dositheus explained that this is why the Confession took its cue from the document it was rebutting, to avoid debates about formulation: "we shall use words, entire concepts, and phrases found there [in Cyril's confession], so that we not appear to be fighting against the words and pious concepts themselves, but rather against the innovations and impious things" (χρησόμεθα δὲ καὶ λέξεσι καὶ ὅλαις ἐννοίαις καὶ περιόδοις κειμέναις ἐκεῖσε).(Kontouma 2016, 351-352)
The Confession thus "possesses no autonomy in its conception; it in no way claims to be a complete dogmatic exposition of Orthodox doctrine". It was a rebuttal document and "never circulated in isolation; it has always been linked to a 'paratext' with which it has been transmitted to us, and from which it is inseparable."(Kontouma 2016, 363)