Did Patriarch Dositheus Change His Mind?
The Confession of Dositheus and His Greatest Critic
In 1672, Patriarch Dositheus of Jerusalem convoked a council to address protestantizing heretics wreaking havoc upon the Orthodox faithful in the Holy Land and across the whole East. Among other things, this council produced a declaration of faith now known as the Confession of Dositheus¹, which, over the course of a few decades and multiple local synods², would come to be approved as the official representation of the belief of the Orthodox Catholic Church in the face of newly formed and rapidly expanding denominations originating in Western Europe.
Despite this overwhelming approval, the Confession has faced significant criticism within the Church, especially in recent times. Among these are the claims that the Confession is Latinizing (for example, that it is close to the Latin teaching on Purgatory³), not truly Ecumenical, innovative in theological categories, modified by other Patriarchates, limited as a conciliar document, formed independently of the Golden Chain of Saints⁴, and Pelagian. While these accusations are repeated by various figures in many places, they mostly appear to have one source in particular: Archbishop Basil Krivoshein of Brussels and Belgium.
Krivoshein levies a series of heavy critiques against the “Symbolic Books” of the Orthodox Church⁵, whereby he concludes that they are not universal, not dogmatic, and do not bind the faithful beyond what is already approved in the Ecumenical Councils.⁶ Among these Symbolic Books are:
The Letters of Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople to the Lutherans (1573–1581)
The Confession of Metrophanes (Kritopoulos), Patriarch of Alexandria (1625)
The Confession of Saint Peter Mogila (1642)
The Confession of Blessed Dositheus (1672)
The Encyclical Letter of the Eastern Patriarchs (1722)
The 1727 Synod of Constantinople
Two Letters of the 1838 Synod of Constantinople
The Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs Against Pope Pius IX (1848)
The Synodal Letter of Constantinople to Pope Leo XIII (1895)
The Archbishop spends more time on some texts than on others. Much may be said about all his criticisms, but we shall focus keenly on one particular claim made against the Confession of Blessed Dositheus.
“Patriarch Dositheus himself realized and openly admitted the shortcomings of his Confession over time, and in its third edition (Iaši, 1690) he made a number of changes and additions to it, directed against the Roman Catholics, about whom, as we have already said, he says nothing in his original text. Thus, he changed Article 18, where a teaching close to the Roman teaching on purgatory was developed, spoke out, albeit indirectly, against the teaching on the Pope as the head of the Church (“a mortal man cannot be the eternal head of the Church” — Article 10), added to the original text a prohibition “to add or subtract anything to the text of the Creed”, etc. All this undoubtedly improves the original version of the Confession. But at the same time it turns it into only a personal document, since at the “Council” in Bethlehem its text was approved without correction. True, the Eastern patriarchs approved the corrected text in 1723, but immediately, in the accompanying letter to the Anglicans, they refer to the Parisian edition of the Confession of 1672, i.e. to the not yet corrected text. All this limits the significance of Dositheus’s Confession as a conciliar document. And its numerous theological shortcomings, as well as the accidental nature of its origin, encourage us to look at it more as a historical monument of the 17th century of symbolic content, rather than as an authoritative and obligatory symbolic text of enduring significance.”⁷
According to Krivoshein, Blessed Dositheus “openly admitted” that his Confession had shortcomings and modified it in 1690 due to this. He then claims that the Eastern Patriarchs “corrected” the Confession in 1723. This latter point is demonstrably untrue as can be seen simply by comparing the 1672 Confession to the 1723 Message of the Eastern Patriarchs to see that the texts are identical, but it is also shown to be wrong by historians that studied the custody of the text between the various Patriarchates.⁸ It is not known whether Krivoshein is knowingly lying or if he was merely misinformed. Doubt is difficult to cast off his intentions, given that he, as a Russian speaker, surely could have obtained some scholarship from his contemporaries, or, as a Greek speaker, surely could have obtained copies of the original documents to compare them.
Krivoshein’s Idea of a Half-Orthodox Confession
In the first place, it must be said that Krivoshein never formally says that the Confession of Dositheus is or ever was heterodox, but given that he says that it innovated, was corrected, and, at times, expressed the teachings of papism and “not the Orthodox Church,”⁹ it can only be concluded that he deems some aspect of the Confession to be heterodox, something he hesitates to say. Instead, he seemingly contradicts himself by saying “In general, Dositheus’s Confession, like the Confession of the Eastern Church (Peter Mogila’s), certainly sets forth Orthodox teaching — otherwise, it could not have been affirmed by the four Eastern patriarchs — but it expresses it in forms borrowed from the Latins and with many deviations from Orthodox tradition in detail.”¹⁰
Could it be that he wholeheartedly embraces the substantial teachings of the Confession, but only disagrees with the terminology? Is it rather that he believes that he admits the dogmatic teachings but disputes the pastoral teachings? When he says it was corrected, is that a correction concerning doctrinal matters or the limitations in how he expresses it? Does he intend to say that Dositheus should have explained the source of his teachings from the Orthodox patristic record rather than confusingly drawing laymen to think that the origin of our teachings is Rome? If he truly did dispute the doctrinal teachings of the Confession, why did he call it generally Orthodox? Is it even possible to have an Orthodox synodal document containing deviations from the Orthodox tradition?
In saying these things, Krivoshein creates a new kind of Orthodoxy where you can deviate from the faith in notable dogmatic matters, still be called “Orthodox,” and remain in good standing with the Church. This Half-Orthodoxy isn’t something that can be called a true representation of the Church.
These discrepancies in this messaging were not missed by other notable figures in the Church. Elder Raphael Karelin, a Georgian archimandrite, felt compelled to defend the Confession in the face of such disputations being repeated by other clergy¹¹, and he calls out Krivoshein as the cause:
“Archbishop Basil (Krivoshein) has more complaints about another document — the ‘Confession of Faith’ of the Jerusalem Patriarch Dositheus, which Archbishop Basil calls a symbolic monument of the 17th century. However, here, too, we see a deliberate manipulation of the text, more suitable for a Jesuit than for an Athonite.”
“It is characteristic that Archbishop Basil (Krivoshein) considers the correction and improvement of the text, which took place with the participation of all the Eastern patriarchs and theologians, to be an indicator of the imperfection of symbolic books, whereas here we see precisely the manifestation of the conciliar mind of the Church.”
“Even if Dositheus of Jerusalem had compiled the ‘Message’ alone, it would have to be said that the Eastern Patriarchs, with their synods that approved the ‘Message,’ expressed their confession of faith through Patriarch Dositheus, and therefore the ‘Message’ belong to all of them, or rather, to the Orthodox Church.”
We can see clearly that the claims made against the Confession are either completely groundless in that they are false, self-contradictory in that they speak of a deviated Orthodoxy, or pointless in that they don’t dispute the actual truthfulness of its content.
In any case, Krivoshein’s comment about the 1690 Confession is subject to scrutiny and necessary to address.
Many have taken Krivoshein’s words about the expanded 1690 edition of the Confession (hereafter C-1690) to mean that Blessed Dositheus removed the deviations from the 1672 edition (hereafter C-1672) and added necessary things to bring it closer to the truth of our faith. Of course, Krivoshein doesn’t actually say that himself; he only implies it. Some contend that by modifying the Confession, Dositheus concedes the fault of C-1672 and thus we also should cast it aside as flawed and not fully Orthodox. The flaw in this thinking is that C-1672 is the version that is synodically approved by the Patriarchates, as has been demonstrated elsewhere, meaning that any further modification of the text by Dositheus alone would not impact its dogmatic status or truthfulness. Nevertheless, let's entertain the allegation and actually analyze the difference between the original Greek texts of C-1672 and C-1690.
1672 vs 1690: Not Quite A Change of Heart
In 1690, Blessed Dositheus published a polemical tract in Bucharest entitled “The Manual Against the Calvinist Insanity.”¹² ¹³ ¹⁴ The Manual contains a number of anti-Calvinist and anti-papist works and patristic citations, and contained within Chapter 6 is a reprint of the Confession of Dositheus; though it doesn’t contain a title, it is introduced as a refutation of the Calvinist confession of Pseudo-Cyril. Furthermore, the many patristic citations and historical explanations Dositheus provides are interwoven throughout the text of the Confession, which can cause a bit of confusion in knowing where each part begins and ends.
One thing must be made abundantly clear: Decrees 1–16 of C-1672 and C-1690 are identical. The only difference is that C-1672 begins each Decree with “We believe” [Πιστεύομεν], while C-1690 begins each Decree after the first with “Furthermore” [Ἔτι]. Beyond that, the Greek text of Decrees 1–16 of C-1672 and C-1690 is exactly the same at every jot and tittle.
As an example, let’s compare the first passage of Decree 16 in both editions. The highlighted portions are to assist the reader who may not be able to easily recognize Greek.
Decree 16 of the Confession of Dositheus (1672)
Decree 16 of the Manual Against the Calvinist Insanity (1690)
No one should repeat the claim that there are stark differences in the texts without verifying, but unfortunately, those who speak against the Confession of Dositheus will never seek what would obviously prove them wrong, so it is the responsibility of the Orthodox to labor more intensely to uproot their falsehoods.
In Decree 17, the difference between C-1672 and C-1690 is relatively minor, but there is, nonetheless, a difference in the last passage.
C-1672 English: “…and a Pious and Lawful Bishop, who has received his priesthood in accordance with the teaching of the Eastern Church.”
C-1690 English: “…and by a Pious and Lawful Bishop, who has received his priesthood in accordance with the teaching of the 𝐂𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐂𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐡.”
C-1672 Greek: “…καὶ ὑπὸ εὐσεβοῦς καὶ νομίμου ἐπισκόπου τὴν Ἱερωσύνην λαβόντος, καθ᾿ ὃν τρόπον ἡ Ἀνατολικὴ Ἐκκλησία διδάσκει.”¹⁵
C-1690 Greek: “…καὶ ἀπὸ εὐσεβοῦς καὶ νομίμου ἐπισκόπου τὴν ἱερωσύνην λαβόντος, καθ’ ὃν τρόπον ἡ Καθολικὴ Ἐκκλησία διδάσκει.”
This is relatively minor, but the real change is in this passage, which is placed after the above-mentioned sentence in C-1690, but is placed before it in C-1672:
C-1672: “Further, we believe that by the word “transubstantiation” the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, — for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety, — but that the bread and the wine are after the consecration, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, nor by the communication or the presence of the Divinity alone of the Only-begotten, transmuted into the Body and Blood of the Lord; neither is any accident of the bread, or of the wine, by any conversion or alteration, changed into any accident of the Body and Blood of Christ, but truly, and really, and substantially, doth the bread become the true Body Itself of the Lord, and the wine the Blood Itself of the Lord, as is said above.”
C-1690: Further, we believe that by the word “transubstantiation” the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, — for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety, — but that the bread and the wine are after the consecration, not typically, nor figuratively, nor spiritually, in the way that the mysteries of the Old Testament are called ‘spiritual,’ being types and shadows, and called mysteries only inasmuch as they signified the true reality of the Mysteries of the New Testament (for as they ate manna and drank from the rock which followed, they thus ate and drank the Body and Blood of the Lord, but only in a symbolic manner, whereas we truly eat and drink; and they partook of things that were not, but were yet to come, while we partake of things that truly are; and they in absence, but we in presence; they of the signs of these, we of the these things themselves), nor by superabundant grace, with which the other Mysteries are enriched, nor by the communication or the presence of the Divinity alone of the Only-begotten, as some Fathers have said concerning Holy Baptism, nor by the true and sure presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, which ‘faith alone’ professes, as the impiety of Calvin innovates, since such a presence is not true and sure, but is imaginary and altogether a figment of the mind, being neither substantial nor real; nor by yet some association, as if the Body of the Lord, being infinitely united by chance to the divinity of the Only-Begotten, were also united to the bread set forth in the Eucharist, and so by mere transference of name, the bread were thus called the Body and the wine called the Blood, and not by change, as the madness of Luther asserts; neither is any accident of the bread, or of the wine, by any conversion or alteration, changed into any accident of the Body and Blood of Christ, but truly, and really, and substantially, doth the bread become the true Body Itself of the Lord, and the wine the Blood Itself of the Lord, as is said above.”
C-1672 Greek: “Ἔτι τῇ μετουσίωσις λέξει οὐ τὸν τρόπον πιστεύομεν δηλοῦσθαι, καθ᾿ ὃν ὁ ἄρτος καὶ ὁ οἶνος μεταποιοῦνται εἰς τὸ σῶμα καὶ τὸ αἷμα τοῦ κυρίου, — τοῦτο γὰρ ἄληπτον πάντη καὶ ἀδύνατον πλὴν αὐτοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ἀμάθειαν ἅμα καὶ ἀσέβειαν ἐπιφέρει — ἀλλ᾿ ὅτι ὁ ἄρτος καὶ ὁ οἶνος μετὰ τὸν ἁγιασμὸν οὐ τυπικῶς οὐδ᾿ εἰκονικῶς, οὐδέ χάριτι ὑπερβαλλούσῃ, οὐδὲ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ ἢ τῇ παρουσίᾳ τῆς θεότητος μόνης τοῦ μονογενοῦς μεταβάλλεται εἰς τὸ σῶμα καὶ αἷμα τοῦ κυρίου, οὐδὲ συμβεβηκός τι τοῦ ἄρτου καὶ τοῦ οἴνου εἰς συμβεβηκός τι τοῦ σώματος καὶ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ κατά τινα τροπὴν ἢ ἀλλοίωσιν μεταποιεῖται, ἀλλ᾿ ἀληθῶς καὶ πραγματικῶς καὶ οὐσιωδῶς γίνεται ὁ μὲν ἄρτος αὐτὸ τὸ ἀληθὲς τοῦ κυρίου σῶμα, ὁ δ᾿ οἶνος αὐτὸ τοῦ κυρίου αἷμα, ὡς εἴρηται ἀνωτέρω.”
C-1690 Greek: “Ἔτι τῇ μετουσίωσις λέξει οὐ τὸν τρόπον πιστεύομεν δηλοῦσθαι, καθ’ ὃν ὁ ἄρτος καὶ ὁ οἶνος μεταποιοῦνται εἰς τὸ σῶμα καὶ τὸ αἷμα τοῦ Κυρίου — τοῦτο γὰρ ἄληπτον παντὶ καὶ ἀδύνατον, πλὴν αὐτοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ τοῖς συκοφαντοῦσι τὴν Καθολικὴν Ἐκκλησίαν φρονεῖν οὕτως ἀμάθειαν ἅμα καὶ ἀσέβειαν ἐπιφέρει — , ἀλλ’ ὅτι ὁ ἄρτος καὶ ὁ οἶνος μετὰ τὸν ἁγιασμὸν οὐ τυπικῶς, οὐδ’ εἰκονικῶς, οὐδὲ πνευματικῶς, καθ’ ὃν τρόπον πνευματικὰ λέγονται τὰ τῆς ἀρχαίας διαθήκης μυστήρια, τυπικὰ καὶ σκιώδη ὄντα, καὶ μυστήρια λεγόμενα μάλιστα, καθόσον ἐσήμαινον τὰ τῆς νέας διαθήκης μυστήρια, ἀλήθεια ὑπάρχοντα, (ἐπειδὴ ἐκεῖνοι ἐσθίοντες τὸ μάννα καὶ πίνοντες ἐκ τῆς ἀκολουθούσης πέτρας, ἤσθιον καὶ ἔπινον τὸ σῶμα καὶ τὸ αἷμα τοῦ Κυρίου, ἀλλὰ τυπικῶς, ἡμεῖς δὲ ἐσθίομεν καὶ πίνομεν ἀληθῶς, κἀκεῖνοι μὲν τὰ μὴ ὄντα, ἀλλ’ ἐσόμενα, ἡμεῖς δὲ τὰ ὄντα, καὶ οἱ μὲν κατὰ ἀπουσίαν, ἡμεῖς δὲ κατὰ παρουσίαν, καὶ οἱ μὲν τὰ δηλωτικὰ τούτων, ἡμεῖς δὲ τὰ ὑπάρχοντα), οὐδὲ χάριτι ὑπερβαλλούσῃ, ἣν τὰ λοιπὰ πλουτοῦσι μυστήρια, οὐδὲ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ ἢ τῇ παρουσίᾳ τῆς θεότητος μόνης τοῦ μονογενοῦς, καθώς τινες τῶν πατέρων εἰρήκασι περὶ τοῦ θείου βαπτίσματος, οὐδὲ κατὰ τὴν ἀληθῆ καὶ βεβαίαν παρουσίαν τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἣν δηλονότι ἡ πίστις μόνη προσφέρει, ὡς ἡ Καλουΐνου ἀσέβεια καινοτομεῖ, ἐπειδὴ ἡ τοιαύτη παρουσία οὐκ ἔστιν ἀληθὴς καὶ βεβαία, ἀλλὰ φαντασιώδης καὶ ὅλως διανοίας ἀνάπλασμα, ὡς μὴ οὖσα οὐσιώδης καὶ πραγματική, οὐδὲ κατ’ ἐναρτισμόν, ὥστε τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Κυρίου ὑπάρχον ἄπειρον διὰ τὸ συνηνῶσθαι τυχὸν τῇ θεότητι τοῦ μονογενοῦς εἶναι καὶ τῷ προκειμένῳ τῆς εὐχαριστίας ἄρτῳ ἡνωμένον, καὶ κατὰ μετωνυμίαν εἶναι τὸν ἄρτον σῶμα καὶ τὸν οἶνον αἷμα καὶ μὴ κατὰ μεταβολήν, ὡς ἡ Λουθήρου μανία βούλεται· οὐδὲ συμβεβηκός τι τοῦ ἄρτου καὶ τοῦ οἴνου εἰς συμβεβηκός τι τοῦ σώματος καὶ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ κατά τινα τροπὴν ἢ ἀλλοίωσιν μεταποιεῖται, ἀλλ’ ἀληθῶς καὶ πραγματικῶς καὶ οὐσιωδῶς γίνεται ὁ μὲν ἄρτος αὐτὸ τὸ ἀληθὲς τοῦ Κυρίου σῶμα, ὁ δὲ οἶνος αὐτὸ τὸ ἀληθὲς τοῦ Κυρίου αἷμα, ὡς εἴρηται ἀνωτέρω.”
Here, every phrase is kept, except “transmuted into the Body and Blood of the Lord” (μεταβάλλεται εἰς τὸ σῶμα καὶ αἷμα τοῦ κυρίου), but rather than this removal being a detriment, as if to deny the real change of the bread and wine, Blessed Dositheus explains more concretely why the bread and wine actually do substantially transition by refuting the innovating Eucharistic theology of Calvin and Luther by name. This is an amazing clarification that many clergy today could stand to benefit from.
This all culminates in Blessed Dositheus doubling down on what he originally said in C-1672 rather than “correcting” himself (which, for Krivoshein, would necessarily mean retracting his words).
Decree 18 is the biggest change. C-1672 and C-1690 have the same first paragraph, but every passage thereafter in C-1672 is removed and replaced in C-1690:
C-1672 English: We believe that the souls of those that have fallen asleep are either at rest or in torment, according to what each has done; — for when they are separated from their bodies, they depart immediately either to joy, or to sorrow and lamentation; though confessedly neither their enjoyment nor condemnation are complete. For after the common resurrection, when the soul shall be united with the body, with which it had behaved itself well or ill, each shall receive the completion of either enjoyment or of condemnation. And the souls of those involved in mortal sins, who have not departed in despair but while still living in the body, though without bringing forth any fruits of repentance, have repented — by pouring forth tears, by kneeling while watching in prayers, by afflicting themselves, by relieving the poor, and finally by showing forth by their works their love towards God and their neighbor, and which the Catholic Church has from the beginning rightly called satisfaction — [their souls] depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from there, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice benefiting the most; which each offers particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offers daily for all alike. Of course, it is understood that we do not know the time of their release. We know and believe that there is deliverance for such from their direful condition, and that before the common resurrection and judgment, but when we know not.
C-1672 Greek: Πιστεύομεν τὰς τῶν κεκοιμημένων ψυχὰς εἶναι ἢ ἐν ἀνέσει ἢ ἐν ὀδύνῃ, καθ᾿ ὅ, τι ἕκαστος ἔπαραξεν· χωριζομένας γὰρ ἀπὸ τῶν σωμάτων παραυτίκα ἢ πρὸς εὐφροσύνην ἢ πρὸς λύπην καὶ στεναγμὸν ἐκδημεῖν, ὁμολογουμένης μέντοι μήτε τῆς ἀπολαύσεως μήτε τῆς κατακρίσεως τελείας. Μετὰ γὰρ τὴν κοινὴν ἀνάστασιν, ὅτε ἡ ψυχὴ ἐνωθείη τῷ σώματι, μεθ᾿ οῦ καλῶς ἢ πονηρῶς ἐπολιτεύσατο, ἀπολήψεται ἕκαστος τὸ τέλειον ἢ τῆς ἀπολαύσεως ἢ τῆς κατακρίσεως δηλονότι. Τοὺς δὲ συμφθαρέντας θανασίμοις πλημμελήμασι καὶ μὴ ἐν ἀπογνώσει ἀποδημήσαντας ἀλλὰ μετανοήσαντας μὲν, ἔτι περιόντας ἐν τῷ μετὰ σώματος βίῳ, μὴ ποιήσαντας δὲ οὐδοτιοῦν καρπὸν μετανοίας — ἐκχέαι δάκρυα δηλονότι καὶ γονυπετῆσαι ἐν γρηγορήσει προσευχῶν, θλιβῆναι, πτωχοὺς παραμυθῆσαι, καὶ τέως ἐν ἔργοις τὴν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν καὶ τὸν πλησίον ἀγάπην ἐπιδεῖξαι, ἃ καὶ ἱκανοποίησιν καλῶς ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς ὠνόμασε — τούτων καὶ αὐτῶν τὰς ψυχὰς ἀπέρχεσθαι εἰς ᾄδου καὶ ὑπομένειν τῶν ἕνεκα ὧν εἰργάσαντο ἁμαρτημάτων ποινήν. Εἶναι δ᾿ ἐν συναισθήσει τῆς ἐκεῖθεν ἀπαλλαγῆς, ἐλευθεροῦσθαι δὲ ὑπὸ τῆς ἄκρας ἀγαθότητος διὰ τῆς δεήσεως τῶς ἱερέων καὶ εὐποιϊῶν, ἃ τῶν ἀποιχομένων ἕνεκα οἱ ἑκάστου συγγενεῖς ἀποτελοῦσι· μεγάλα δυναμένης μάλιστα τῆς ἀναιμάκτου θυσίας, ἣν ἰδίως ὑπὲρ τῶς κεκοιμημένων συγγενῶν ἕκαστος καὶ κοινῶς ὑπὲρ πάντων ἡ καθολικὴ καὶ ἀποστολικὴ ὁσημέραι ποιεῖ ἐκκλησία· ἐννοουμένου μέντοι καὶ τούτου τοῦ μὴ εἰδέναι ἡμᾶς δηλαδὴ τὸν καιρὸν τῆς ἀπαλλαγῆς. Ὅτι γὰρ γίνεται ἐλευθερία τῶν τοιούτων, ἀπὸ τῶν δεινῶν καὶ πρὸ τῆς κοινῆς ἀναστάσεώς τε καὶ κρίσεως οἴδαμεν καὶ πιστεύομεν· πότε δὲ, ἀγνοοῦμεν.
C-1690 English: We believe that the souls of those that have fallen asleep are either at rest or in torment, according to what each has done; — for when they are separated from their bodies, they depart immediately either to joy, or to sorrow and lamentation; though confessedly neither their enjoyment nor condemnation are complete. For after the common resurrection, when the soul shall be united with the body, with which it had behaved itself well or ill, each shall receive the completion of either enjoyment or of condemnation.
Since the author has mentioned memorials for the departed and the purgatorial fire in this chapter, we declare that the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ does indeed affirm a cleansing after death, accomplished through the dread Sacrifice and other sacred prayers, supplications, almsgivings, and other God-fearing works accomplished by the faithful on behalf of those who have departed. However, the idea that there are purgative punishments, and that the souls are cleansed by a purgatorial fire, or that there is in general any fire, either punitive or purgative, inflicted upon the disembodied soul before the second coming of Christ, according to the sentence and decision in the judgment to come regarding our way of life; this idea, we neither tolerate to speak or to believe.
As such, we differ from those who propose such a purgatorial fire in four ways:
1. The first is that we affirm that such a place of redemption is not outside or near Hell, but is within Hades. For no such ‘third place’ is granted either by the Scripture or the common belief of the Catholic Church, and whatever texts the inventors of purgatory have produced are misinterpreted, distorted, and forcibly drawn into a foreign and discordant meaning. That redemption indeed takes place in Hell is obvious from Scripture and the Fathers (since the final and universal sentence of the Savior against the reprobate has not yet taken place, for when it does, at the Second Coming, then no further hope of rest or release from Hell remains). It is clear that Hell is the place both of bondage and of redemption, and no third place is given.
2. The second is that we do not permit the term ‘purgatorial fire’ to be attributed properly to anything except God and Christ. The sorrow and groaning of such souls in Hell should not be called ‘purification,’ and not simply and absolutely, but only figuratively. For it is God who, through the detention in Hell, as though they were in a prison, grants release to the captives. God Himself is properly, primarily, and truly the ‘purgatorial fire,’ who alone brings about perfect redemption or refreshment and cleansing according to the Church, or relief according to Basil the Great, or reconciliation according to the Goldenmouth.
3. The third is that it is not proper to say that, after death, some are punished on account of their venial sins. For if this were the case, then all would fall under such punishment, and no one would ascend to heaven after death. For there is none without sin, as is testified to by the Brother of God, the Beloved Disciple in his Epistles, and the Council of Carthage; and elsewhere Scripture says that ‘for a just man falleth seven times.’ Such a sin, however, does not separate man from God, nor is it contrary to charity, nor does it render the one who commits it guilty of all sin; but rather, since it comes as a result of human weakness and not from a defiled choice, it is accounted as nothing, and is blotted out by the daily prayer of the faithful. Moreover, we must add what is fitting: ‘It belongs to the goodness of God to neither overlook a little good nor to exact judgment for a small sin. Even so, a little good in those who have committed great sins merits no reward at all on account of the abundance of their wickedness; nor again does a little evil in those who have accomplished great good merit punishment, because that which is superior ought to prevail. For if the greater is reckoned as nothing, much more is the lesser. Likewise, just as a little good in the otherwise wicked cannot bring reward but only a lessening of punishment, so a little evil in the otherwise good does not bring punishment, but only a lessening of enjoyment.’ Therefore, we must not think that those who died guilty of venial sins, which are the so-called ‘lesser faults,’ are purified by fire or punished in any other way. Nor indeed do we say that those who repented sincerely and completely, but were snatched away by death before they could bring forth fruits worthy of repentance (as we who are alive are commanded in the Gospels to bring forth), are punished. For by credible witnesses it is shown that they manifested hatred of the despairing and condemned sin (true and perfect repentance is the voluntary turning of the soul toward righteousness and away from sin, with heartfelt contrition and grief for the faults committed, together with hope of the mercy of God the Father through Jesus Christ). These such who depart are united with Christ, by whom they are justified, sanctified, glorified, and join the company of the blessed. To say concerning such that ‘the sin is forgiven, but the penalty remains’ is idle nonsense, those who say thus are unthinking, neither are theologians nor are they sober men. Therefore we say that those who have truly repented are not punished in Hell, for such dwell in the Heavenly Church of the firstborn, but that for great sins both punishment and redemption take place in Hades. The punishments of such, as is gathered from the holy Fathers and the prayers offered in the Church for the departed, are grief, or the shame of conscience, and torments, or remorse, and confinement and darkness, or fear and uncertainty about the future (for they know not when they shall be released), or merely the delay of the vision of God, and according to the measure of sins, either all these, or some of them. There is no fire, however, for the departed before the common judgment. For it is at That Time that the eternal fire will devour those found utterly unworthy of such mercy.
4. The last difference concerns how redemption is determined. That at the time of judgment, the God of mercies will have compassion upon many, Truth itself bears witness, saying, ‘It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment.’ That, also, before the common judgment, many are redeemed from their bonds, we likewise confess, according to the common opinion of the Catholic Church. As to the precise time of this redemption, though, we are absolutely ignorant. Therefore, we reject the notion that by means of such or so many liturgies, or prayers, or alms, or indulgences of such-and-such a hierarch or patriarch, the soul of this or that person is released from its painful bonds. For though we confess that such things, performed by the Orthodox, do contribute to the redemption of such souls in Hell, we yet utterly reject the idea that they have the power to deliver at a particular time. For this belongs to God alone, to Him who, according to the Revelation, holds simply the keys of Hell and of death, and who alone knows the measure and quality of human sins, and the movements and inclinations of the heart from which sin arises, and with Him lies redemption and the determination of redemption, but to the Church alone is permitted to intercede for the departed.C-1690 Greek: Πιστεύομεν τὰς τῶν κεκοιμημένων ψυχὰς εἶναι ἢ ἐν ἀνέσει ἢ ἐν ὀδύνῃ, καθ’ ὅτι ἕκαστος ἔπραξεν· χωριζομένας γὰρ ἀπὸ τῶν σωμάτων παραυτίκα ἢ πρὸς εὐφροσύνην ἢ πρὸς λύπην καὶ στεναγμὸν ἐκδημεῖν, ὁμολογουμένης μέντοι μήτε τῆς ἀπολαύσεως μήτε τῆς κατακρίσεως τελείας. Μετὰ γὰρ τὴν κοινὴν ἀνάστασιν, ὅτε ἡ ψυχὴ ἑνωθείη τῷ σώματι, μεθ’ οὗ καλῶς ἢ πονηρῶς ἐπολιτεύσατο, ἀπολήψεται ἕκαστος τὸ τέλειον ἢ τῆς ἀπολαύσεως ἢ τῆς κατακρίσεως δηλονότι.
Ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἐν τῷ παρόντι κεφαλαίῳ ἐμνήσθη ὁ συγγραφεὺς μνημοσύνων περὶ τῶν κεκοιμημένων καὶ καθαρτηρίου πυρός, φαμὲν ὅτι ἡ ἅγια καθολικὴ καὶ ἀποστολικὴ τοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἐκκλησία δοξάζει καὶ μετὰ θάνατον κάθαρσιν τὴν διὰ τῆς φρικτῆς θυσίας καὶ ἑτέρων ἱερῶν εὐχῶν, δεήσεων, ἐλεημοσυνῶν τε καὶ ἄλλων θεοφιλῶν ἔργων, ὑπὸ τῶν πιστῶν ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀποιχομένοις τελουμένων. Καθαρτικαῖς δὲ τιμωρίαις καὶ διὰ καθαρτηρίου πυρὸς ἀποκαθαίρεσθαι, καὶ ὅλως πῦρ τιμωρητικὸν ἢ καθαρτικόν, ἀσωμάτου ψυχῆς δραττόμενον, πρὸ τῆς δευτέρας τοῦ Χριστοῦ παρουσίας κατὰ τὴν ἐν τῇ μελλούσῃ κρίσει καὶ ἀποφάσει τῶν βεβιωμένων ἡμῖν ἀνταπόδοσιν, οὔτε φρονεῖν οὔτε λέγειν ἀνεχόμεθα.
Ὅθεν καὶ τέσσαρσι διαφοραῖς τῶν ὑποτιθεμένων τὸ τοιαῦτον καθαρτήριον πῦρ διαφέρομεν. Ἡ πρώτη ἐστίν, ὅτι πρεσβεύομεν μὴ εἶναι τὸν τοιοῦτον τόπον τῆς λυτρώσεως ἔξωθεν ἢ ἐγγὺς τοῦ ᾅδου, ἀλλ’ ἔνδον τοῦ ᾅδου. Οὐ γὰρ δίδοται τρίτος τόπος οὔτε ὑπὸ τῆς Γραφῆς οὔτε ὑπὸ τῆς κοινῆς δόξης τῆς Καθολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας, καὶ ὅσα ῥητὰ προσφέρουσιν οἱ τοῦ καθαρτηρίου γεννήτορες παρεξηγοῦνται, διαστρέφονται καὶ βίᾳ ἕλκονται εἰς ἀλλότριον καὶ ἀπᾷδον σημαινόμενον. Ὅτι δὲ ἐν ᾅδου γίνεται ἡ λύτρωσις (καθότι οὐ γέγονεν ἕως ἄρτι ἡ τελεία καὶ καθόλου ἀπόφασις τοῦ Σωτῆρος κατὰ τῶν ἀποβεβλημένων, ὅταν γὰρ αὕτη γένηται, ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ παρουσίᾳ δηλονότι, οὐκ ἔτι ἀπολείπεται ἧστινοσοῦν ἀνέσεως ἢ ἀπολυτρώσεως ἐλπὶς ἐκ τοῦ ᾅδου), δῆλον ἀπό τε τῆς Γραφῆς καὶ τῶν Πατέρων. Οὐκ ἄδηλον, ὅτι ὁ ᾅδης ἐστὶν ὁ τόπος τοῦ δεσμοῦ καὶ τῆς λυτρώσεως, καὶ οὐ δίδοται τρίτος τόπος.
Ἡ δὲ δεύτερα ἐστὶ μὴ λέγεσθαι πῦρ καθαρτήριον πλὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, τὴν ἐν τῷ ᾅδῃ δὲ τῶν τοιούτων λύπην καὶ στεναγμὸν λέγεσθαι ἀκύρως καθάρσιον, καὶ μὴ ἁπλῶς καὶ ἀπολύτως, ἀλλὰ συνεκδοχικῶς, ἧ διὰ τῆς ἐν τῷ ᾅδῃ ὡς ἐν δεσμωτηρίῳ κατοχῆς συγχωρεῖ τοῖς αἰχμαλώτοις ὁ Θεός. Ὁ δὲ Θεός ἐστι τὸ κυρίως καὶ πρώτως καὶ καθαυτὸ καθαρτήριον πῦρ, τὸ πάντῃ καὶ πάντως τελείαν ποιούμενον εἴτε λύτρωσιν εἴτε καὶ ἀναψυχὴν καὶ κάθαρσιν κατὰ τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν, εἴτε ἄνεσιν κατὰ τὸν μέγαν Βασίλειον, εἴτε καταλλαγὴν κατὰ τὸν Χρυσόστομον.
Τρίτη ἐστὶ μὴ καλῶς λέγεσθαι διὰ τὰ ἀθανάσιμα τῶν πλημμελημάτων τιμωρεῖσθαί τινας μετὰ θάνατον. Ταύτῃ γὰρ ἂν πάντες τῇ τοιαύτῃ τιμωρίᾳ ὑποπέσειεν, καὶ οὐδεὶς μετὰ θάνατον εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἀναβαίνοι. Οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀναμάρτητος, κατά γε τὸν ἀδελφόθεον καὶ τὸν ἐπιστήθιον ἐν ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς καὶ τὴν ἐν Καρθαγένῃ σύνοδον· καὶ ἀλλαχοῦ ἡ Γραφὴ λέγει, ὅτι ἑπτάκις ὁ δίκαιος τῆς ἡμέρας ἁμαρτήσεται. Τὸ τοιοῦτον δὲ ἁμάρτημα οὔτε τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐξίστησι τὸν ἄνθρωπον, οὔτε τῇ ἀγάπῃ ἀντιφέρεται, οὔτε ἔνοχον ποιεῖ τὸν τοῦτο ἐργαζόμενον παντοία ἁμαρτία· εἶτα ἐξ ἀσθενείας τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης προερχόμενον οὐκ ἀπὸ μιαρᾶς προαιρέσεως τῇ καθημερινῇ τῶν πιστῶν εὐχῇ ἀφανιζόμενον εἰς οὐδὲν λογίζεται. Πρὸς τούτοις ῥητέον, ὅτι «προσήκει τῇ ἀγαθότητι τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ ὀλίγον ἀγαθὸν μὴ παριδεῖν ἢ τὴν σμικρὰν ἁμαρτίαν δίκης ἀξιοῦν· ἀλλὰ τὸ ὀλίγον ἀγαθὸν ἐν τοῖς τὰ μεγάλα ἡμαρτηκόσιν οὐδὲ μιᾶς ἀμοιβῆς ἐπιτυγχάνει, διὰ τὴν τῆς πονηρίας πλεονεξίαν· οὐδ’ ἄρα τὸ ὀλίγον κακὸν ἐν τοῖς τὰ μεγάλα κατωρθωκόσι προσήκει δίκης τυχεῖν, διὰ τὸ τὰ βελτίω νικᾶν· εἰ γὰρ τὸ μᾶλλον δοκοῦν οὐκ ἔστι, σχολὴ τό γε ἧττον ἂν εἴη. Ἔτι, ὡς ἔχει τὸ ὀλίγον ἀγαθὸν ἐν τοῖς τἆλλα φαύλοις, οὕτω τὸ ὀλίγον κακὸν ἐν τοῖς τἆλλα ἀγαθοῖς. Ἀλλὰ τὸ ὀλίγον ἀγαθὸν ἐν ἐκείνοις οὐ δύναται ἀγαθῶν ἀνταπόδοσιν ποιεῖν, ἀλλὰ μόνον διαφορὰν κολάσεως. καὶ τὸ ὀλίγον ἄρα κακὸν οὐ ποιήσει κόλασιν, ἀλλὰ μόνον διαφορὰν ἀπολαύσεως». Οὐκ ἄρα διὰ τὰ ἀθανάσιμα ἁμαρτήματα, τὰ καὶ σμικρὰ λεγόμενα, τοὺς τούτων ἐνόχους καὶ κοιμηθέντας διὰ πυρὸς καθαίρεσθαι ἢ ἄλλως πως τιμωρεῖσθαι νομιστέον. Μήτε μὴν τιμωρεῖσθαι τοὺς μετανοήσαντας μὲν γνησίως καὶ τελείως προαρπασθέντας δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ θανάτου καὶ μὴ δυνηθέντας ποιῆσαι καρποὺς ἀξίους τῆς μετανοίας, οὓς ποιεῖν ἐν εὐαγγελίοις οἱ ζῶντες ἡμεῖς διακελευόμεθα, καὶ ὡς δι’ ἀξιοπίστων τοιούτων μαρτύρων τὸ μῖσος τῆς ἀπεγνωσμένης καὶ κατεγνωσμένης ἁμαρτίας ἐνδείκνυσθαι (ἔστι δὲ γνησία καὶ τελεία μετάνοια ἡ ἀποστροφὴ τῆς ψυχῆς πρὸς δικαιοσύνην ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας αὐτοπροαίρετος, τ. ἔ. ἑκούσιος σὺν θερμοτάτῃ καρδίας συντριβῇ καὶ θλίψει ἐφ’ οἷς ἐπλημμέλησε μετὰ ἐλπίδος τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). Καί οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπαίρουσιν ἑνούμενοι τῷ Χριστῷ, ὑφ’ οὗ δικαιοῦνται, ἁγιάζονται, δοξάζονται καὶ ἐν μακαρίοις συναγάλλονται. Τὸ δὲ λέγειν ἐπὶ τῶν τοιούτων, ὅτι ἀφείθη μὲν ἡ ἁμαρτία, μεμένηκε δὲ ἡ ποινή, παιζόντων ἐστὶ καὶ οὐκ εὖ φρονούντων, οὐ θεολογούντων καὶ σωφρονούντων. Μὴ τιμωρεῖσθαι λοιπὸν φαμὲν τοὺς καλῶς μετανοήσαντας ἐν τῷ ᾅδῃ, ἐπειδή οἱ τοιοῦτοι αὐλίζονται ἐν τῇ ἐπουρανίῳ τῶν πρωτοτόκων Ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἀλλὰ περὶ μεγάλων ἁμαρτημάτων γίνεσθαι εἰς ᾅδου τήν τε τιμωρίαν καὶ τὴν λύτρωσιν. Εἰσὶ δὲ τῶν τοιούτων αἱ τιμωρίαι, ὡς συνάγεται ἀπὸ τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων καὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ ὑπὲρ τῶν κεκοιμημένων εὐχῶν, λύπη ἢ συνειδότος αἰσχύνη καὶ βάσανοι ἢ μετάμελος καὶ συγκλεισμὸς καὶ σκότος ἢ φόβος καὶ ἀδηλία τοῦ μέλλοντος (οὐκ οἴδασι καὶ γὰρ τὸν καιρὸν τῆς ἀπαλλαγῆς) ἢ μόνη ἀναβολὴ τῆς θείας θεωρίας καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἀναλογίαν τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων ἢ πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα ἢ τινὰ τούτων. Πῦρ δὲ οὐκ ἔστι τοῖς κεκοιμημένοις καὶ τιμωρουμένοις πρὸ τῆς κοινῆς κρίσεως. Τότε γὰρ τὸ αἰώνιον πῦρ καταφάγεται τοὺς κατὰ πάντα τρόπον ἀναξίους κριθέντας τοῦ τοιούτου ἐλέους.
Ἡ τελευταία δὲ διαφορά ἐστι περὶ τοῦ διορισμοῦ τῆς λυτρώσεως. Ὅτι μὲν γὰρ ἐν καιρῷ τῆς κρίσεως πολλοὺς ἐλεήσει ὁ πολυέλεος Θεός, μαρτυρεῖ αὐτὴ ἡ αὐτοαλήθεια, εἰποῦσα «ἀνεκτότερον ἔσται Σοδόμοις καὶ Γομόρροις ἐν τῇ κρίσει». Ὅτι δὲ καὶ πρὸ τῆς κοινῆς κρίσεως πολλοὺς λυτροῦται ἐκ τῶν δεσμῶν, καὶ τοῦτο ὁμολογοῦμεν κατὰ τὴν κοινὴν δόξαν τῆς Καθολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας. Τὸ πότε ὅμως τῆς λυτρώσεως ταύτης πάντῃ καὶ πάντως ἀγνοοῦμεν. Ὅθεν καὶ τό, διὰ τῶν τάδε ἢ τόσων λειτουργιῶν ἢ εὐχῶν ἢ ἐλεημοσυνῶν ἢ συγχωρητικῶν τοῦ δεινὸς ἀρχιερέως ἢ τοῦ δεινὸς πατριάρχου ἀπολύεσθαι τὴν τάδε ψυχὴν τῶν κατεχόντων αὐτὴν ἀνιαρῶν, ἀποβάλλομεν. Ὅτι μὲν γὰρ τὰ τοιαῦτα συμβάλλουσι πρὸς λύτρωσιν τῶν ἐν τῷ ᾅδῃ τοιούτων, ὑπὸ τῶν Ὀρθοδόξων ἐνεργούμενα, ὁμολογοῦμεν· ὅτι δὲ δύναμιν ἔχουσι ῥύσασθαι ἐν τῷδε τῷ ὁποιῳδήποτε χρόνῳ, γενναίως ἀποστρεφόμεθα. Ἐπὶ γὰρ τῷ Θεῷ μόνῳ, τῷ ἔχοντι ἁπλῶς τὰς κλεῖς τοῦ ᾅδου καὶ τοῦ θανάτου, κατὰ τὸ τῆς Ἀποκαλύψεως, καὶ εἰδότι τὴν ποσότητα καὶ ποιότητα τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἁμαρτιῶν, καὶ τὰ κινήματα καὶ ἐγκρύφια τῆς καρδίας, δι’ ὧν προέρχεται ἡ ἁμαρτία, κεῖται ἡ λύτρωσις καὶ ὁ διορισμὸς τῆς λυτρώσεως, τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ δὲ μόνον ἐφεῖται τὸ παρακαλεῖν ὑπὲρ τῶν κεκοιμημένων.
Obviously, we can see that Blessed Dositheus wanted to make it perfectly clear to what extent the Orthodox believe in post-mortem purification, and he draws attention to certain points, which may seem odd out of context, but are actually extremely necessary in the face of the very well-developed theology of Purgatory among the papists, that none familiar with the details of their belief may accidentally come to think we say as they do.
The most notable part? Despite changing the wording of Decree 18, Blessed Dositheus confirms that he still believes what he originally wrote in C-1672. So any notions that he repented of his belief in post-mortem purification are utterly fictitious.
Krivoshein himself does not say such a thing, but only says that Dositheus taught something “close to purgatory.” This is a totally ridiculous thing to say; either it is purgatory or it is not, or it is some other third thing which is neither purgatory nor Orthodoxy. It is not possible for Dositheus to “correct” this unless what he originally wrote was erroneous by its very nature, but not only is that not true, but no studied critic of the Confession dares to say that it is. The desperate fanangling about terminology can only be a cloud and a cover for those unwilling to take a firm stance on whether the Confession of Dositheus is Orthodox or heterodox.
Let no one claim, now, that Blessed Dositheus changed his mind, or corrected his work, or revised his Confession as a means of suggesting that he saw the error of his ways and turned back to the Orthodox tradition; no, rather, he always professed Orthodoxy, fully and completely, and he only further professed what he accomplished in 1672, and never once sought to recall his Confession to replace it with a correction.
Blessed Dositheus of Jerusalem, pray to God for us!
Troparion - Tone 1
When thou didst inherit the Throne of the Mother Church, / the Holy Apostle James didst thou imitate / in calling the Church to one accord / to expel the errors arising from Calvin the Most Wicked one, / and protecting the Orthodox from across the whole world, / thy divine illumination saw them set free from the enemy. / Wherefore, O Blessed Dositheus, // We entreat thee to pray that our souls be saved.
Kontakion - Tone 8
Let us hymn the luminary of the Man-Befriending God, / the pious protector of the faith, / who didst follow the footsteps of the Holy Hesychasts, / who art honored as the Guardian of the Lord’s Sepulchre, / who fought the darkness of error. / His wisdom spread to men as fire through leaves. / Therefore seeing him adorn the Heavens as he adorned the Church, / we keep his holy memory. / Him do we beseech to intercede for us, // that our souls find mercy!
Blessed Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem
Footnotes:
Note: The translation of the 1690 Confession of Dositheus was done by myself, Kaleb of Atlanta, with machine assistance. The translation of the 1672 Confession of Dositheus is from Dennis Bratcher.
The Confession of Blessed Dositheus (1672). https://www.crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html
Kaleb Deostatuta, “The Dogmatic Character of the Confession of Dositheus,” Chapter 5: Is the Confession Ecumenical and Dogmatic? https://kalebatlantaprime.medium.com/the-dogmatic-character-of-the-confession-of-dositheus-52485ddfb645
Kaleb Deostatuta, “The Controversy of Purgatory: Blessed Dositheus and Saint Mark of Ephesus.” https://kalebatlantaprime.medium.com/the-controversy-of-purgatory-blessed-dositheus-and-saint-mark-of-ephesus-79f08891aa69
Kaleb Deostatuta, “Blessed Dositheus and the ‘Golden Chain’:
The Theology of Saint Symeon and the Confession of Dositheus.” https://kalebatlantaprime.medium.com/blessed-dositheus-and-the-golden-chain-54f5def9a98eArchbishop Basil Krivoshein, “Symbolic Texts of the Orthodox Church” (Символические тексты в Православной Церкви). https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Vasilij_Krivoshein/simvolicheskie-teksty-v-pravoslavnoj-tserkvi/
ibid., Chapter I.
“However, since during this entire historical period, due to circumstances we will not discuss here, as they are beyond the scope of this report, not a single Ecumenical Council was convened — or rather, not a single Council received universal ecclesiastical recognition as Ecumenical — all these local ecclesiastical definitions, confessions of faith, epistles, etc., all these so-called “symbolic texts,” since they were not reviewed and approved by the Church as a whole at an Ecumenical Council, lack authority, incontestability, and pan-ecclesiastical recognition.”
“Однако, так как за весь этот исторический период, по обстоятельствам, о которых мы не будем здесь говорить, ибо это выходит из рамок настоящего доклада, не был созван ни один Вселенский Собор — вернее, ни один Собор не получил всеобщего церковного признания в качестве Вселенского, — то все эти поместные церковные определения, исповедания веры, послания и т. д., все эти, как принято говорить, “символические тексты”, как не рассмотренные и не утвержденные Церковью в ее целом на Вселенском Соборе, лишены авторитетности, бесспорности и всецерковного признания.”ibid., Chapter IV.
“Да и сам патр. Досифей осознал и открыто признал со временем недостатки своего Исповедания и в третьем его издании (Яссы, 1690 г.) сделал в нем ряд изменений и дополнений, направленных против римо-католиков, о которых он в первоначальном своем тексте, как мы уже сказали, ничего не говорит. Так, он изменил статью 18, где развивалось учение, близкое к римскому учению о чистилище, высказался, правда косвенно, против учения о папе как главе Церкви (“смертный человек не может быть вечной главой Церкви” — ст. 10), добавил к первоначальному тексту запрещение “прибавлять или убавлять что-либо к тексту Символа веры” и т. д. Все это, несомненно, улучшает первоначальную редакцию Исповедания. Но вместе с тем превращает ее в только личный документ, так как на “Соборе” в Вифлееме был одобрен еще не исправленный его текст. Правда, восточные патриархи в 1723 г. одобрили исправленный текст, но тут же, в сопроводительном письме к англиканам, ссылаются на парижское издание Исповедания 1672 г., т. е. на еще не исправленный текст. Все это ограничивает значение Исповедания Досифея как соборного документа. А его многочисленные богословские недочеты, равно как и случайный характер его возникновения, побуждают смотреть на него более как на исторический памятник XVII в. символического содержания, нежели как на авторитетный и обязательный символический текст непреходящего значения.”Craig Truglia, “Confession of Dositheus, Translation from Saint Filaret of Moscow.”
“Mikhail Bernacky asserts that there are two versions of the Confession. The first edition from 1672 was published in Paris in 1676. Another version was made in 1690 and in 1691 was sent to Patriarch Adrian of Moscow, who had it translated into Russian. (It should be noted that many of Dositheus’ books were still handwritten and not published books.) However, in 1723 the 1672 version was sent yet again, as it had again attained Pan-Orthodox reception in Constantinople. In 1728, the 1672 document was again translated into Russian, but was not published. The 1672 text was again translated into Russian by Saint Filaret of Moscow in 1838 and it was this text which was published.” https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2022/12/17/confession-of-dositheus-saint-filaret-of-moscow/Krivoshein, “Symbolic Texts,” Chapter IV.
“In defense of this prohibition, Dositheus cites the Church’s experience, which supposedly became convinced of the harm that comes from laypeople reading Holy Scripture, and attempts to justify it by asserting that, as Scripture itself states, salvation comes from “hearing the word of God,” not from reading it. Needless to say, the “experience” in question here is that of the Roman Catholic Church, not the Orthodox Church.”
“В защиту этого запрещения Досифей ссылается на опыт Церкви, якобы убедившейся во вреде, происходящем от чтения Св. Писания мирянами, и пытается оправдать его утверждением, что, как сказано в самом Писании, спасение от ‘слышания слова Божия,’ а не от его чтения. Излишне говорить, что ‘опыт,’ о котором здесь идет речь, есть ‘опыт’ Римско-Католической, а не Православной Церкви.”ibid.
“В общем и целом Исповедание Досифея, как и Исповедание Восточной Церкви (Петра Могилы), излагает, конечно, православное учение, иначе и оно не могло было быть утвержденным четырьмя восточными патриархами, но выражает его в заимствованных у латинян формах и со многими уклонениями от православного предания в подробностях.”Archimandrite Raphael Karelin, On Modern Neo-Gnosticism (Response to Zaitsev A.A.).https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Rafail_Karelin/o-sovremennom-neognostitsizme-otvet-zajtsevu-a-a/
Dositheus of Jerusalem, “The Manual Against the Calvinist Insanity” (manuscript). The Confession of Dositheus begins with the second paragraph on Page 30, stops at the end of Decree 17 on Page 41, and continues with Decree 18 again with the last paragraph on Page 81. https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/greek/posobie-oprovergayushhee-kalvinistskoe-povrezhdenie-uma-encheiridion-kata-kalbinikes-phrenoblabeias/
John Kamiris, “The Confession of the Orthodox Faith of Dositheus the Patriarch of Jerusalem” (Η Ομολογία της Ορθοδόξου Πίστεως του Πατριάρχου Ιεροσολύμων Δοσιθέου). This is an academic paper about the Confession of Dositheus. The full clear text of the 1690 edition of the Confession contained within the Manual Against the Calvinist Insanity begins on Page 464, stops at the end of Decree 17 with the first paragraph on Page 484, and continues with Decree 18 again with the last paragraph on Page 684.
Pages 457–494: https://ecclesiagreece.gr/greek/press/theologia/material/1949_3_4_karmiris4.pdf
Pages 657–703: https://ecclesiagreece.gr/greek/press/theologia/material/1949_4_4_karmiris5.pdfGreek plaintext of the 1690 edition of the Confession of Dositheus. https://sathanasoulias.blogspot.com/2017/04/1672.html
Greek plaintext of the 1672 Confession of Dositheus. https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2/creeds2.vi.ii.html