A Response to : Sola Scriptura: Why It Scares Me

By Bishop Paul Dolan (ROC Patriarach Emeritus)

It has been virtually 500 years (5 centuries) since Luther nailed his 95 Theses on the Cathedral door in Wuttenburg.  He penned the terms "Sola Scriptura" and "Sola Fide".

What he, and subsequent "reformers", did was to throw out a major cohexsive and integral part of the Christian faith -- Sacred Tradition (Paradiso, paradosis -- a handing down or over). 

What does 500 years of  Sola Scruptura show us? 

Division upon division upon division and splits with splits and splits.  Disagreements  of Theology and faith run rampant in Protestantism.  Actually Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists are  logical endpoints of Luther's Sola Scriptura.  It is conservatively estimated that there are over 2,600 different denominations or sects in Protestantism. Some estimate it as high as about 20,000, with more each passing week.

Can this be the unifying work of the Holy Spirit; or something diabolical?  "By their fruits you shall know them." (Matthew 7:16)

Why Sola Scriptura honestly scares me

http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/65778.htm
11 / 15 / 2013 SOURCE: Patheos
By Ryan Adams

Being raised in a Protestant home, the Scriptures were (and in many ways still are) the end-all-be-all of the faith for me. However, there is a reason I am no longer a Protestant. This reason has many branches but all points back to one thing, context. Given the necessity of context, I find the whole idea of “Scripture Alone” horrifying.

What it is:

Sola Scriptura is the idea that Christianity ought to be based off of “Scripture Alone” (which is the English translation of “Sola Scriptura”), that is to say, it should be without ritual, or the teaching authority of anyone. And that each of us is obligated to read the Scriptures and form ourselves through them, on our own.

It Can’t Really Exist:

Many of the things we are afraid of do not exist. Zombies, Armageddon cults (the kind who bring on the end of the world via some long-forgotten Egyptian deity), Cthulhu, and so on, are all prime examples of thing which are scary, but don’t really exist.

This is how I feel about Sola Scriptura. It’s frightening, but in reality it doesn’t exist.

It would seem a little ridiculous to say that it doesn’t exist; being that it’s the staple doctrine of nearly all Protestants. However, that’s just the point… it’s a doctrine. It’s already going against itself, erasing itself from the realm of possibility by its own action. A doctrine (not scripture) which proclaims that all doctrine are to be rejected is ludicrous (A harkening back to the, now terribly clichéd, argument against relativism). It simply isn’t possible to have Scripture alone, since you didn’t receive Scripture alone. Instead, all of us were taught about Scripture by someone else. It didn’t just fall out of the sky and land on us. And even if it did, it’s still given to us by someone, the authors who had lives, cultures, rituals, and all number of things which provide a context for the Scriptures. And context means that Scripture is by no means “alone.”

If It Does Exist, It’s an Autobiography:

All this talk of texts, context, authorship and interpretation reminds me of a certain Frenchman…

Anyways, there’s a serious problem which arises from the relentlessly individualistic model of Biblical interpretation. Whenever anyone begins their own interpretation of anything, without direction, they form a sort of autobiography in their interpretation. Interpretation of this sort reflects nothing but oneself.

This is a main idea of that certain Frenchman (philosopher Jacques Derrida), that whenever one interprets a text without context, one is simply painting a self-portrait with the colors of the text they are interpreting. This is because pure ideas do not simply pass from one person to another, instead they must pass through the filtration of language, which is passed further through the schema of one’s consciousness which allows one to make sense of things. This schema is built, in part, by the social, historical, political, etc, context in which we live, making it impossible to avoid unless we allow our understanding to be mapped by another context. If this contextual misreading and subsequent autobiography is turned upon the Scriptures, then I can think of no more grievous blasphemy than to make the Scriptures, which are supposed to be the image and fulfillment, the Word of God, into nothing more than an autobiography.

To deform God into an image of yourself is idolatry itself; a golden calf of proudly defended misinterpretation.

It Isn’t Biblical:

Nowhere in the Bible will you find any discussion of the Bible or how to interpret the Bible. Both the New and Old Testament will make reference to “the Scriptures,” but this does not refer to the Bible as a whole, only the Old Testament.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 makes it clear that there is a decisively important element of tradition and that much was taught by word of mouth. The separation between what has been taught by word of mouth and what has been relayed by the epistles (which are letters by bishops/Apostles) means that not everything which was important to know was recorded in the epistles.

Furthermore, the New Testament makes it clear that the Apostles (and in the First Letter to Timothy, bishops) are the bearers of the teaching of Christ, and that it is their duty to protect those teachings, and to instruct those of the faith in these teachings. Also made abundantly clear is the fact that anyone’s interpretation of the teachings of Christ is not as good as anyone else’s, were this true, there would have been no need for Paul’s letters, or really any of the New Testament aside from the Gospels.

What About History(?):

As I’ve already mentioned, the concept of Scripture Alone rejects a basic fact of the Scriptures; that they were written by men. While I do believe that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and kept free of error by the Holy Spirit, it doesn’t change the fact that people wrote these books, and as such, they are full of context (historical situation, cultural practices, societal expectations, and (perhaps most importantly) language and idiom). Without knowledge of the history and culture of the human authors of the Scriptures, one can have no hope of understanding what they are trying to communicate.

This is not even to mention the fact that the Bible itself (especially the New Testament) is a book with a lot of historical movement. The early Church (in the time of the Apostles) did not have the books of the New Testament (mostly since they were still being written), and it wasn’t until many generations later that these books were codified and the canon was created. The Church spent the bulk of its early life without these New Testament scriptures, thus, Sola Scriptura is historically speaking a fairly new idea (it’s hard to preach “Scripture Alone” when you don’t yet have Scriptures…).

What’s more is that this ideal of “Scripture Alone” rejects the whole of Christianity which has come before the individual Christian. It rejects the history of the Church and the great teachers of the faith (and when it doesn’t, it doesn’t uphold its own values.)

Pride:

All of this culminates in my reason for rejecting Sola Scriptura (and thus Protestantism); pride.

I am perhaps one of the worst offenders when it comes to this particular sin, so I place no judgment on those who fall into it; however this doesn’t mean that even I, the worst among the prideful, should sit by and allow my pride to become dogma. Rather, we should always struggle against our sins.

The pride of Sola Scriptura, if it is even possible, is in its rejection of those who have taught us: our parents, our preachers/priests/teachers, the history of the Church (the saints, the councils, the Fathers), and through this, even the Apostles, those who learned everything directly from the mouth of Christ himself; in favor of a vain autobiography of self-interpretation. A self-portrait painted with the colors of the Gospel.

This is obvious the worst case scenario of the doctrine, but this is the result of it’s actually being followed. Even the most well-meaning person who takes the “Scripture Alone” seriously will be nothing more than an arm chair theologian, someone who is completely ignorant of the period and context of the texts written and so instead is forced to put their own context and period in as a stand in. Thus the self-portrait appears again, even when the believer is well-meaning and pious in their practice. In this, Scripture Alone is again found impossible, as it’s no longer “Scripture Alone,” but rather it is “Scripture and Me.”

This is why Sola Scriptura frightens me. I am full of sin: failings and misgivings and bias. As such I much prefer “Scripture and Tradition,” to “Scripture and Me.”

Orthodoxy- in Brief

     At present, the organization of the Orthodox Church consists of churches centered in Constantinople (with a great number of believers in Europe, North and South America headed by the patriarchal clergy in Istanbul, Turkey); Alexandria (Egypt); Antioch (with its capital in Damascus, Syria); Jerusalem; Russia; Georgia; Serbia; Rumania; Bulgaria; Greece; Albania; Poland; Czechoslovakia; Latvia; and the "Orthodox Church in America." The Finnish and Japanese Orthodox Churches are autonomous. After World War I there developed a great number of Orthodox Greek and Russian congregations (of the Russian Church Abroad) in almost all parts of the world. The total number of Orthodox Christians in the world is now estimated at about 130,000,000.

     The naming of the Church as "Orthodox" occurred during the period of religious dispute from the 4th century to the 6th century when it became necessary to differentiate the true Church from heresies (initiated by Arias, Nestorius, and others who also called themselves Christians but were outside the Church). The word orthodoxy is translated from the Greek words ortho (right) and doxa (glory), meaning right glory. Other names given to the Church were Catholic, which means "whole" or "all encompassing," meaning that in the Church resides all the Truth and that the Church calls everyone all over the world to salvation, regardless of their nationality or social status. In the translation of the Nicene Creed (the "Symbol of Faith") from Greek to Slavic, the word "catholic" was translated as "universal."
     In the Orthodox Church, established national churches — for example, those in Jerusalem, Russia, and Serbia — are often headed by patriarchs, and sometimes by archbishops or metropolitans. To discuss religious matters concerning the Church, the patriarch or metropolitan calls a conference with the bishops. Matters of concern to the whole Orthodox include questions regarding faith (dogma) and the canons (Church laws). These are discussed in the Ecumenical Councils, of which there have been seven. These were attended by delegates from all the Orthodox patriarchates and autocephalous (autonomous) Orthodox churches. Representatives from each patriarchate, including both episcopal, priestly, and lay delegates are sent. In this manner, the system in the Orthodoxy neither unilateral nor democratic but universal.

     The teaching of the Orthodox Church in condensed form took shape in the Symbol of Faith (the 'Nicene Creed'), which was established at the first and second Ecumenical Councils in 325 and 381 (in the cities of Nicea and Constantinople). This Symbol of Faith was in turn developed from the ancient creeds, developed during the apostolic period. In summing up the Orthodox teaching, we believe in one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit — the Trinity one and indivisible. The Father is before all time; the Son of God is begotten of the Father before all ages; and the Holy Spirit proceeds from God the Father from all eternity. We believe in One God, worshipped in the Trinity, eternal, almighty and all-knowing; that of His own Will He created all that exists out of nothing: first, the realm of the angels, invisible to us, and then our visible and material world. God also created people, breathed into us eternal souls, imprinted in our hearts his benevolent law, and gave us free will. He created us to be eternally blessed in communion with Him. We believe that God is eternally just and righteous in His mercy. He governs the entire universe and the life of each one of us, and without His will nothing can be accomplished.

Apologetics I

Christianity and Orthodoxy

By Archimandrite Sergius


AS FAR BACK AS the earliest Apostolic times, Christ’s disciples were known as those who “call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (I Corinthians 1:2; cf. Acts 9:14, 21). From the very beginning, the Holy Apostles were persecuted as those who “teach in the name of Jesus” (Acts 4:18; cf. 5:28). They rejoiced when they suffered from persecution and violations “for His Name’s sake” (Acts 5:41). In consequence of this, by the end of the first decade after the foundation of Christ’s Church, “the disciples were called Christians” (Acts 11:26). This appellation was given to them first at Antioch, and probably by the local Gentiles, which implies that Christianity was no longer recognized as a Judaic sect, but as a distinct religious teaching.[1] Later, St. Cyril of Jerusalem observes, in his Tenth Catechetical Homily (Chapter XVI): “Jesus Christ, the Son of God, honored us to call ourselves Christians,” [2] whereas St. Athanasios the Great, in his First Homily against the Arians (Chapter II), states that “through Christ we are, and call ourselves, Christians.”[3]


It seems that this name quickly acquired public recognition, since even in the last half of the first century, the Roman historian Tacitus, in his work The Annals (Book XV, Chapter XLIV), when discussing Rome’s destruction by fire under the Emperor Nero, tells us that the Emperor blamed for this those “called by the people Christians [christianos].” Further on, he explains: “...the originator of that name, Christ [Christus], was sentenced to death by Pontius Pilate, the procurator, under the reign of Tiberius.” [4]


Thus, all subsequent persecutions by the pagan authorities against the disciples of Christ were under the banner of the struggle against Christianity as such. Referring to this fact, St. Peter the Apostle writes: “If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; ...yet if any man suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf” (I St. Peter 4:14, 16). As we see from the extant testimonies of the Martyrs, Christ’s Martyrs, when summoned to court, were accused specifically as Christians, which they professed themselves to be. The instance of the Holy Martyr Lukian of Antioch is rather typical. He suffered in one of the last persecutions of the early fourth century. Before breathing his last, he cried three times: “I am a Christian.” [5]


However, as is well known, along with the external enemies of Christianity—Jews and pagans—various internal enemies—false teachers and heretics—appeared as early as the Apostolic times. They considered themselves Christians and surreptitiously replaced the Truth of Christ with an heretical fallacy. St. Paul refers to these people as “having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof” (II St. Timothy 3:5), and advises his disciple Timothy to turn away from such people. Likewise, St. John the Theologian writes: “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us: for if they had belonged to us, they would no doubt have remained with us” (I St. John 2:19). He explicitly calls these people “antichrists” (2:18) and commands True Christians not to greet them or to receive them in their houses (II St. John 10-11).


During subsequent centuries, we observe the same clear-cut line of demarcation between authentic Christianity and false Christianity. For example, St. Justin the Philosopher (†166), a Christian apologist of the second century, notes in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew that, “there are such men confessing themselves to be Christians, and confessing the crucified Jesus to be the Lord and Christ, yet not teaching His doctrine, but that of the spirits of error.” St. Justin contrasts these false Christians with the “disciples of the true and pure doctrine of Jesus Christ” (Chapter XXXV). [6]


In the third century, the ecclesiastical writer, Clement of Alexandria, states that, unlike beasts of burden, which labor out of fear, “those who call themselves orthodox (orthodoxastai) should do good deeds in full consciousness of what they do” (Stromata, I, 9). [7] This is the first occasion in ancient Christian writings that we encounter the term “orthodox,” whereby we specifically denote our Holy Faith today. [Incidentally, let us point out that the Slavonic word for “Orthodoxy,” “Pravoslaviye,” does not convey precisely the meaning of the Greek word “orthodoxia.” The Greek word consists of the adjective “orthos” (“right” or “true”), the root “doch” and the ending “sia.” The noun with the same root, “doch,” derives from the verb “docheo” (to “think,” “consider,” or “look upon”). It is for this reason that the primary meaning of doxa is “thought” or “opinion”; hence, the secondary meaning: “to hold a good or bad opinion of somebody,” “fame,” or “ill will.” (See M. Bailly, Dictionnaire Grec-Français, Paris, 1910, pp. 528, 531-532). Therefore, in view of the primacy and original meaning of the word “doxa,” “orthodoxia” is properly translated as “right thinking” or “right opinion,” not “true glory,” as the Slavonic would suggest.]


After the fourth century, the term “Orthodoxy” is most often used in the writings of the Holy Fathers of the Church to signify the true doctrine of Christ, as opposed to heretical teachings. St. Athanasios of Alexandria, who is frequently called the “Father of Orthodoxy,” writes in his History of the Arians (Chapter LXXVIII): “The Arians, usurping the magnificent name of the Saviour, like pagans desecrated the whole of Egypt by forcibly introducing there the heresy of Arios. For Egypt was the only place at that time which had preserved the competency of Orthodox doctrine (tes orthodoxias).” [8] In another of his writings, On Definitions, St. Athanasios defines the true Christian as one of orthodox or “correct” belief: “The Christian is a true spiritual home of Christ, which is built on good deeds and right doctrines (dogmaton orthon).” [9]


According to the historian Gelasios of Cyzicus (Church History, II, 33), the First Œcumenical Synod in Nicæa, which condemned the heresy of Arios, circulated in 325 A.D. “a Synodal Epistle...to the Holy Churches of God in the whole subcelestial world—to the clergymen and laymen of the Orthodox Faith (tes Orthodoxou pisteos).” [10] In reference to the same Synod in Nicæa, St. Germanos, Patriarch of Constantinople, observes, in his treatise On the Heresies and the Synods (Chapter XIV), that “...after the detailed dogmatic elucidation and investigations that took place there, the doctrine of the Orthodox (to dogma ton orthodoxon) was reconfirmed with even greater power.” [11]


In reference to the Second Œcumenical Synod (381), Blessed Theodorite explicitly cites, in his Church History (V, 9), the title of the Synodal Epistle sent by the “Holy Synod of the Orthodox Bishops (ton orthodoxon episkopon) who had assembled in the great city of Constantinople....” [12]


The great defender of Orthodoxy against the Nestorian heresy in the fifth century, St. Cyril of Alexandria, in one of his epistles to Nestorios, exhorts the latter to call the Holy Virgin the “Mother of God” and thus, by the “preservation of right thinking (orthen...doxan), to serve the common faith in peace and concord.” [13] Likewise, in a letter of defense against his accusers, St. Cyril writes: “I have set forth the doctrine of the true faith (tes orthes pisteos) to those who were tempted by the interpretations of Nestorios.” [14] Similarly, in the eighth century, the great Church hymnographer, St. John of Damascus, in his dogmatic Theotokion (in the third tone) against the heresy of Nestorios, beseeches the Most Holy Virgin to intercede before Jesus Christ our Lord and “...to save the souls of those who confess her as Mother of God in an Orthodox way (orthodoxos).”


St. Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople, a great Confessor and a champion against the Eutychian heresy of the Monophysites, writes to St. Leo, Pope of Rome: “...As we witnessed the way that the Orthodox faith was violated and the heresies of Apollinaris and Valentinus were revived by Eutyches, it became necessary to declare this in order to preserve the people.” [15]


At the Fourth Œcumenical Synod in Chalcedon (451), as witnessed by the Acts of the Synod, when the epistle of St. Leo the Pope against the teaching of the Monophysites was read, the honorable Bishops exclaimed: “This is the Faith of the Fathers, this is the Faith of the Apostles.... This is the way the Orthodox (hoi orthodoxoi) believe. Anathema to those who do not believe in this way.... We, the Orthodox, think thus....” [16]


The Fathers of the Sixth Œcumenical Synod, convened in Constantinople in 680 against the Monothelite heresy, stated: “For a long period of time, this Synod has investigated the issue of our pure Christian faith..., and the dissension regarding Orthodoxy (peri tes orthodoxias) that had somehow arisen was overcome by relying on the dogmas of truth” [17] (“tes orthodoxou pisteos ten alitheian...ten hygie orthoteta tes orthodoxou pisteos”).


In like manner, the Fathers of the last, the Seventh, Œcumenical Synod, which was assembled in Nicæa, in 787, against the heresy of the Iconoclasts, after confirming the decisions of the six previous Œcumenical Synods, stated, in the first act of the Synod, that according to ancient tradition, delivered through the Holy Apostles and their successors, the Holy Fathers, “...those who are converted from some heresy to the Orthodox (orthodoxon) confession and the Tradition of the Œcumenical Church should deny in writing their [former] heresy and confess in writing the Orthodox Faith (ten orthodoxon pistin).” [18]


A liturgical service for the recanting of their heresies by those “who come back to the Orthodox (orthodoxon) and true faith” was composed in the ninth century by St. Methodios, the Patriarch of Constantinople. During his time, a perfect peace settled over the Church of Christ, after the reign of tumultuous heresies, over which Orthodoxy finally triumphed. An anonymous hagiographer, himself St. Methodios’ contemporary, cites the restless labors of the latter, by which he struggled “to abolish heresy from his flock as a plague and to implant a firm and Orthodox faith (orthodoxon pistin) in every soul.” [19] It is thus quite natural that the feast of the triumph of Orthodoxy over heresy, which was introduced into the Church in 842 through the initiative of St. Methodios the Patriarch, was called the “Feast of Orthodoxy,” “heorte tes orthodoxias,” which has been celebrated annually, even to the present day, on the First Sunday of Great Lent: The Sunday of Orthodoxy.


Therefore, the Feast of Orthodoxy is like a stamp that seals and confirms the dogmatic activity of the Church of Christ as Orthodox, in her struggle against heresy. It was, furthermore, during the epoch that led up to this feast that St. John of Damascus wrote a famous treatise, in which he systematically presents the doctrine of the Church, expressed in her struggle against heresy during the age of the Œcumenical Synods and as it was clarified by the Holy Fathers. He has rightly called this major treatise of his “A Precise Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (tes orthodoxou pisteos).” [20]


In this way, the Church of Christ that struggled for the triumph of Orthodoxy against heresy came to be called the Orthodox Church. This accentuates the fact that it is the lawful inheritor and faithful protector—both in letter and in spirit—of the true teachings of Christ and the Apostles; i.e., of the Orthodox faith, elucidated by the Holy Fathers and confirmed by the Seven Œcumenical Synods. Since the truth is only one, just as only one straight line connects two points—man and God—, all other religious communities, which have deviated from the Orthodox Church of Christ, must not be called “Orthodox,” but should be characterized as “heterodox” (“thinking differently”), by virtue of having distorted the Gospel of Christ and joined to it “another gospel” (see Galatians 1:6). Such is the confession of the Roman Catholics, who fell away from Orthodoxy, initially, because of the arbitrary act of adding the expression “and from the Son” (Filioque) to the eighth article of the Nicæan-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith (Creed) and, later, on account of a number of innovations of more or less importance, introduced throughout the centuries and even up to our own time.


By the same token, the Protestant confession, encompassing all of its innumerable denominations, also betrayed Orthodoxy, following still a different path. It denies, in principle, the authority of Holy Tradition, of the Œcumenical Synods, and of the Holy Fathers, acknowledging, instead, the ascendency of the human mind and personal interpretation. [21]


Attempts to minimize the apostasies of the heretics by dismissing them as deviations motivated by human ambition, or “mistakes on both sides,” are entirely irrelevant. In fact, there may well have been some practical and tactical mistakes on both sides, caused by human pride and a craving for power. However, such human weaknesses and acts neither justify false teachings nor obfuscate the objective truth of Orthodoxy. Despite common human fallibilities of all kinds, the whole body of the unorthodox denominations will prove false; while Orthodoxy will shine ever brighter, and will attract, by this, all True Christians. For Orthodoxy has from the very beginning preserved the Divine, soul-saving truths of Christianity and was called by the Divinely inspired Apostle of the Nations, “the pillar and ground of the truth” (I St. Timothy 3:15). St. Isidore the Pelusian (fifth century), a man of wise and keen mind, after having proved that the love of power is the cause of multifarious heresies, observed: “...but if it were removed from men, then there would be good hope that all, unanimously and in an orthodox way (orthodoxos), would gather around the Divine Gospel” (Book IV, Letter 55) [22].


From our foregoing historical review, it logically follows that Orthodoxy is not just one of the many forms of Christianity, along with the legitimate existence of other, non-Orthodox forms of Christianity; our Orthodox Faith is Christianity itself, in its most pure and one and only authentic form. When juxtaposed to Orthodoxy, all of the rest of the so-called Christian denominations are essentially alien to true Christian—that is, Orthodox—spirituality and the essence of the Faith.


Until this very day, the Orthodox Church has remained the only lawful inheritor, protector, and confessor of the true teachings of Christ, the Apostles, and the Holy Fathers, as they are confirmed by the Seven Œcumenical Synods and sealed by the celebration of the Feast of Orthodoxy. That is why the Patriarchs of the East wrote in 1723, in their “Epistle on the Orthodox Faith,” the following words: “The dogmas and the doctrines of our Eastern Church, examined already in ancient times, were correctly and piously set forth and confirmed by the Holy and Œcumenical Synods; we are not permitted to add or remove anything from them. Thus, those who wish to be in concord with us on the Divine dogmas of the Orthodox Faith need simply follow and humbly obey, without further examination or inquiry, what is set forth and decreed by the ancient tradition of the Fathers and confirmed by the Holy and Œcumenical Synods, since the time of the Apostles and their successors, the Divine Fathers of our Church.” [23]


That great Saint of our Bulgarian Orthodox Church, the venerable Metropolitan Clement (Drumev) of Tirnovo—Confessor, champion, and Martyr for Orthodoxy—, during the time of Stambolov’s dictatorship, said, in a famous sermon delivered on the Sunday of Orthodoxy in 1893: “The true Faith of Christ is not, and cannot be, anything else but our pure, Holy Orthodox Faith.... Our Orthodox Faith is the true word of God, the pure truth of God, the great power of God—power that is both invincible and beneficial to all true believers.” [24]


__________________


1. Bishop Michael, Commentary on the Epistles, Vol. I (Kiev, 1897), p. 279 [in Russian].


2. Migne, Patrologia Graeca [PG], Vol. XXXIII, Col. 681.


3. Ibid., Vol. XXVI, Col. 16.


4. This reference from Tacitus’ The Annals can in no way be considered a subsequent Christian addition, since, as the citation itself confirms, he was a pagan writer who expressed unrestrained hostility towards Christians. He calls them “hateful because of their dishonor (per flagitia invisos)” and characterizes Christianity as “a pernicious superstition (exitiabilis superstitio).” Such expressions are typical of the spirit of a hardened pagan and pessimist like Tacitus.


5. Lives of the Saints, October 15 (Old Style).


6. PG, Vol. VI, Col. 549.


7. Ibid., Vol. VIII, Col. 744.


8. Ibid., Vol. XXV, Col. 788.


9. Ibid., Vol. XXVIII, Col. 549


10. Ibid., Vol. LXXXV, Col. 1340.


11. Ibid., Vol. XCVIII, Col. 52.


12. Ibid., Vol. LXXXII, Col. 1212.


13. Ibid., Vol. LXXII, Col. 41.


14. Ibid., Vol. LXXVII, Col. 59.


15. Migne, Patrologia Latina, Vol. LIV, Col. 744.


16. Mansi, Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum (Paris—Leipzig, 1901), Vol. VI, Col. 957.


17. Ibid., Vol. XI, Cols. 246, 280.


18. Ibid., Vol. XII, Actio prima.


19. PG, Vol. C, Cols. 1257, 1300.


20. “ …Akribes ekthesis tes orthodoxou pisteos.”


21. Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev), The Distortion of Orthodox Truth in Russian Theological Thought (Sofia, 1943), p. 213 [in Russian].


22. PG, Vol. LXXVIII, Col. 1108.


23. Orthodox Christian Catechism (Sofia, 1930), pp. 210-211 [in Bulgarian].


24. Spiritual Culture, Nos. 20-21 (1924), pp. 155, 163.


THE VERY REVEREND SERGIUS, former Assistant Professor at the Theological Academy in Sofia, Bulgaria, is the spiritual Father of the Russian Convent of the Holy Protection in Sofia, which is under the jurisdiction of Bishop Photii of Triaditza, the sole Hierarch of the True (Old Calendar) Orthodox Church of Bulgaria and himself a former Assistant Professor at the University of Sofia. Father Sergius was dismissed from his academic post when he refused to accept the New  Revised,  or Papal, Calendar, on the occasion of its introduction into the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. He is rightly considered a confessor of the Faith by traditionalist Bulgarian believers. This essay was written in celebration of the Sunday of Orthodoxy, 1998.


From Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XV, No. 4, pp. 3-9.

What is Orthodoxy?
by Bishop Lee Oliverio


What is Orthodoxy?
 Is it merely one of many variants of Christianity? According to Archimandrite Sergius, “our Orthodox faith is Christianity itself, in its most pure and one and only authentic form. When juxtaposed to Orthodoxy, all of the rest of the so-called Christian denominations are essentially alien to true Christian – that is, Orthodox – spirituality and the essence of the faith.” (#5)
By the fourth century, the early Church Fathers used the term “Orthodoxy” to refer to the true doctrine of Christ as opposed to heretical teachings. In the words of St. Athanasios, “The Christian is a true spiritual home of Christ, which is built on good deeds and right actions (dogmiton orthon). Orthodoxy is based upon, steeped in, and clings tenaciously to the teachings of Jesus and His Disciples.
Orthodox doctrine is based upon two pillars: Scripture and Tradition. Actually, it could be better summarized by the one word “Tradition” with two aspects or facets. St. Paul mentions these facets in his letter to the Church in Thessalonica, encouraging the parishioners that, in living a Christian life of faith, they should 

 “stand firm in the traditions we have learned, both the oral and the written” (2 Thess. 2:15).

 The “written” tradition is Scripture. (At the time 2 Thessalonians was written, “Scripture” referred to the Old Testament. The New Testament Canon would not be fixed for quite a while yet.) The “oral” tradition refers to those teachings other than what were included in Scripture. They were “oral” for good reason.
  In the original precise meaning of the word, writes Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky (Orthodox Dogmatic Theology), Sacred Tradition is the tradition which comes from the ancient Church of Apostolic times. In the second to the fourth centuries this was called “the Apostolic Tradition.”
According to Pomazansky, the ancient Church carefully guarded the inward life of the Church from those outside of her; her Holy Mysteries were secret, being kept from non Christians. When these Mysteries were performed — Baptism or the Eucharist — those outside the Church were not present; the order of the services was not written down, but was only transmitted orally; and in what was preserved in secret was contained the essential side of the faith. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (4th century) presents this to us especially clearly. In undertaking Christian instruction for those who had not yet expressed a final decision to become Christians, the hierarch precedes his teachings with the following words:

 “When the catechetical teaching is pronounced, if a catechumen should ask you, 'What did the instructors say?' you are to repeat nothing to those who are without (the church). For we are giving to you the mystery and hope of the future age. Keep the Mystery of Him Who is the Giver of rewards. May no one say to you, 'what harm is it if I shall find out also?' Sick people also ask for wine, but if it is given at the wrong time it produces disorder to the mind, and there are two evil conse quences; the sick one dies, and the physician is slandered” (Prologue to the Catechetical Lectures, ch. 12).

Protopresbyter Pomazansky quotes St. Basil the Great on the oral aspect of Tradition:
In the following words, St. Basil the Great gives us a clear understanding of the Sacred Apostolic Tradition:

 “Of the dog mas and sermons preserved in the Church, certain ones we have from written instruction, and certain ones we have received from the Apostolic Tradition, handed down in secret. Both the one and the other have one and the same authority for piety, and no one who is even the least informed in the decrees of the Church will contradict this. For if we dare to overthrow the unwritten customs as if they did not have great importance, we shall thereby imperceptively do harm to the Gospel in its most important points. And even more, we shall be left with the empty name of the Apostolic preaching without content.”

Perhaps it could be put another way. The Church Fathers, meeting in Council, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in order to preserve the true (orthodox) teachings of Jesus and His Disciples, i.e. the Oral Tradition of the Apostles, formulated the collection of Books we call the New Testament. This codified or canonized specific writings into part of Sacred Scripture, i.e. the New Testament. The other facet of Tradition was the interpretation or exegesis the Church Fathers gave to Sacred Scriptures, through sermons, and apologetical explanations concerning Faith and true dogma combating heretical (wrong, “alternative”) teachings.
What were some of these heretical teachings? Orthodox teaching comes, as stated above, directly from Jesus and His Disciples. It “contains” the Way, the Truth and the Life, because the teachings or doctrine come from Jesus, The Way, The Truth and The Life (John 14:6).
Heresy advocates a different way, teaching an alternate truth and/or describing a more anthropocentric life. The result of following a different way (than Jesus’) is found in Proverbs 14:12 … 
There is a way, which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.
Let’s look at some of the earlier heresies, two are Judaic and one is Greek.

The Ebionites insisted Christians be circumcised as well as baptized and they rejected all the Holy Scriptures except the Pentateuch and the Gospel of Matthew and even adapted them to fit their needs.

The Elkesites advocated honoring the commands of the Law of Moses as eternal dogmas and rejected from the Bible those books that didn’t fit their doctrine. They also included the occult arts and had their own “Holy Scriptures” which, much like the Mormons, they claimed had been communicated to them exclusively by God.

The Gnostics essentially adulterated divine Revelation with the inventions of human philosophy. Human wisdom was, in effect, raised above Scripture and the Wisdom of God. For Gnostics, philosophy, human wisdom, is the determiner or interpreter of Doctrine, not Scripture, not Jesus, not His Disciples. Quoting the Old Testament, St. Paul gives God’s response (1 Cor. 1:10)-

I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.

     Roman Catholicism pays an equally high honor to human reason. Since the time of Thomas Acquinas, when theology was wedded to the philosophy of Aristotle and the concept of “developing doctrine” was birthed, Roman Catholicism has sought to alter Orthodox Christian doctrine. “Developing doctrine” refers to doctrine developing or growing (evolving) in stages, becoming more clearly defined with each stage. According to this concept, it would seem Jesus and His Disciples did not have the advantage of modern philosophy and scholarship, therefore needing help to adapt themselves to the contemporary socioreligiomoral milieu.

     Orthodoxy, on the other hand, contends “earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints “ (Jude 3). It is in agreement with Hebrews 13:7,8 which enjoins the church to “remember those who led you, who spoke the Word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.” His Word should be the guiding light of human reason and not the other way around.
Fr. Stanley Harakas (#2, p.242) offers a succinct description of Orthodoxy:

The only Church in the whole history of Christianity which has maintained itself fundamentally unchanged from the very beginning to this very day, and which manifests the full presence of the Holy Spirit in its order, teaching, and worship, and which can show essential historical continuity between the Church which was established at Pentecost, is that which today is known by the name “Orthodoxy”.

Orthodoxy puts great store in Tradition. The “developing doctrine” of Roman Catholicism would dilute it to fit changing philosophy. When the Protestants broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the Reformation, Tradition, already watered down, was rejected completely. Protestants denied the power of Tradition and the Ecumenical Council. “Sola Scriptura!” is the rallying cry, “”Scripture alone!” The Statement of Faith of Three Rivers Church, affiliated with the Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA), explains “Sola Scriptura” this way:
 Sola Scriptura ("only the scriptures") The Scriptures, not the institutional church, are the primary authority by which humanity must live and against which truth and error must be judged.
According to this thinking, the Ecumenical Council has no role to play. It is useless and, in effect, impotent. Here is the irony: 

Protestants deny the Council, yet place great store in those books the Council deemed divinely inspired, i.e. the New Testament.

 Once you deny the authority of the Church that established the New Testament, it is a small step to eliminate a book or two that disagrees with your own personal theology” (#3) or, at the very least, to tweak things a bit’.
Martin Luther held the phrase “Man is justified by faith alone (Sola Fides) as the flagship for the Reformation Armada. Three Rivers Church explains thusly:
Sola Fides ("only by faith")  
The gift of salvation and the benefits of being in God's eternal family come through personal faith in Christ as Savior, not by any personal good works, the merits of a human mediator, religious ceremonies or institutional efforts.
      Orthodoxy takes the Bible seriously, for it is the written (“inliterate”) revelation of God and one of the chief sources of Orthodox faith. Together with Tradition, writes Fr. Harakas, (the Bible) leads us to the truth of who is God Himself in Trinity. A glance at the texts of the writings of the Holy Fathers will show that they were immersed in the Scriptures and that they read them with zeal and quoted them profusely from memory (#2, p. 27) .  And yes, Orthodoxy places every bit as much stock in “faith” as many Protestants.

 True faith is found only in the truth revealed in Jesus Christ, which is preserved and communicated to us in the traditions of the Church. The more we share in this revealed truth, the more deeply we are in communion with God, provided this is done with our hearts and lives, not just with our intellect (#2, p.126) .




References
(1) “The Way of the Pilgrim” (Annotated).
(2) “The Orthodox Church: 455 Questions and Answers”. By Fr. Stanley Karakas.
(3) “Orthodox Apologetics in Response to Fundamental Protestants” by Bishop Patrick Murray.
(4) “Orthodox Apologetics in Response to Papal Roman Catholics” by Bishop Patrick Murray
(5) “Christianity and Orthodoxy” by Archimandrite Sergios.
(6) “The Church is One” by Alexei Stepanovich Khomiakov.
(7) “The Prayer Rope: Meditations of a Monk of the Holy Mountain.”
(8) ”Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky.