By Newman Nahas
Introduction
In 1672, a local synod of Eastern bishops meeting in Jerusalem 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.[1]
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."[2]
This alone should end the debate as to whether the 1672 Confession was received as irreformable dogma. 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), but the Confession was never received as a primary authority. Rather, the Confession was corrected by Dositheus himself,[3] corrected extensively by St. Philaret with the consent of the synod of the Russian Church,[4] and treated as "particular" synod rather than "ecumenical" by the Patriarchs who transmitted it to the non-Jurors.[5]
Second, even if the Confession had been received, its authority is limited to what it was received as: a polemical manual subordinate to the sources of dogma (not a source of dogma itself). [6]
In the late seventeenth century, Roman Catholics and Calvinists were locked in confessional struggle across Europe, particularly in France. Both sides wanted to demonstrate that the Eastern Orthodox shared their theology. The publication of the Calvinist "Confession of Cyril Lucaris" in 1629 had given the Reformed party apparent evidence of Orthodox sympathy.[1]
France championed Roman Catholic interests; Holland championed the Calvinist cause. Both pressured the Ecumenical Patriarchate to produce statements favorable to them. The Confession of Dositheus emerged in this geopolitical pressure cooker.[2] As Kontouma documents, the Confession was produced "satisfying 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.[VK3] That said, "Dositheus complied willingly with the anti-Calvinist exercise requested by the ambassador of Louis XIV."[VK4]
Dositheus inherited a theological program from his predecessor Nektarios, who in 1663 had founded the Patriarchal Academy with the the charter declaring: "neither to worship the pope through monstrous discourse, nor to think like Calvinists and Lutherans through the worship of shadows" (μήτε διὰ τερατολογίαν παπολατρεῖν, μήτε διὰ σκιολατρείαν καλβινολουτεροφρονεῖν).[VK16] The Confession was thus part of a program of charting a course between Rome and Geneva.
In January 1672, yielding to the "insistent demands" of the French ambassador Count de Nointel, a Local Council assembled in Constantinople under Patriarch Dionysius IV. This council had significant representation: four Eastern Patriarchs and approximately forty bishops participated. It produced a tomos condemning Calvinism and repudiating the Confession of Cyril Lucaris.
But note: this is not the 1672 synod at issue.[4]. Several commentators have confused the two synods.
The Confession at issue was produced two months later, as a follow-up document. The Synod's own title page identifies it as "The Local Synod Held in Jerusalem" (Hē en Ierosolymois Topikē Synodos).[5a] As Kontouma argues, this designation was almost certainly deliberate. Dositheus "showed himself very attentive to questions of canonicity, which is why he took care to maintain the local character of the synod of Jerusalem."[VK1] No patriarch or prelate from outside his patriarchate was invited.
The occasion was not a pre-planned council but an ad hoc response to a liturgical celebration: the consecration of the restored Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. Hierarchs and clergy from the Jerusalem Patriarchate had gathered for the festivities. The text was pre-drafted by Dositheus personally and read before the synod: "from the first paragraphs of the prologue, Dositheus appears as the exclusive author of the Acts, namely of a pre-drafted text, read before the synod assembled in Jerusalem and approved by it".[VK2]
Kontouma notes something else that seems to be lost to many: what is commonly called "the Confession of Dositheus" was never an independent document. It was intended as chapter VI of a six-chapter polemical treatise titled Shield of Orthodoxy (Ἀσπὶς Ὀρθοδοξίας). And most important, it was intended specifically as a reply to the Calvinist confession. As Dositheus himself explained in his preface: "we thought it necessary to set forth questions and certain chapters equal in number to those composed by Cyril and diametrically opposed to them" (δεῖν ᾠήθημεν ἐκθέσθαι ἐρωτήσεις καὶ κεφάλαιά τινα ἰσάριθμα τοῖς Κυρίλλῳ συγγραφεῖσι καὶ κατὰ διάμετρον ἀντικείμενα). He further stated: "we shall use words, entire concepts, and phrases found therein, 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).[VK5]