The Synod of Jerusalem (1672)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Phil D.

ὁ βαπτιστὴς
The Council of Trent (1545–63) is fairly well-known amongst the Reformed as a watershed event in history where the Roman Catholic Church officially confirmed its opposition to the true Gospel.

What may not be so well-known is that the Eastern Orthodox churches had a similar seminal moment at the Synod of Jerusalem, in 1672. The council was called and led by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Dositheus II, in order to denounce a confession of faith that a late Patriarch of Alexandria, and then Constantinople, Cyril Lucaris, had apparently written in c.1629. Although it was never successfully implemented as an ecclesiastical document, Cyril’s confession was heavily influenced by Reformed theology, and was largely Calvinistic in its soteriology. While many Orthodox scholars have insisted it was a forgery, including at the Synod, there is ample, verifiable correspondence from Cyril that makes most modern historians deem its authenticity as beyond reasonable doubt.

In any event, the Synod adopted a counter-confession that Dositheus had written, which addressed and often refuted Cyril’s 18 articles, point-by-point. In the process they formally denied Sola Scriptura, Predestination, and Justification by Faith Alone, while affirming Baptismal Regeneration, Works Righteousness, Transubstantiation (μετουσίωσις), the canonicity of the Apocrypha, the use and veneration of Icons, and praying to the saints.

The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia states:

[The decrees of the Synod] have been accepted unreservedly by the whole Orthodox Church. They were at once approved by the other patriarchs, the Church of Russia, etc.; they are always printed in full among the symbolic books of the Orthodox Church, and form an official creed or declaration in the strictest sense, which every Orthodox Christian is bound to accept. (Vol. 8, p.367)​

Philip Schaff characterized the Synod thusly:

This Synod is the most important in the modern history of the Eastern Church, and may be compared to the Council of Trent. Both fixed the doctrinal status of the Churches they represent, and both condemned the evangelical doctrines of Protestantism. Both were equally hierarchical and intolerant, and present a strange contrast to the first Synod held in Jerusalem, when 'the apostles and elders,' in the presence of 'the brethren,' freely discussed and adjusted, in a spirit of love, without anathemas, the great controversy between the Gentile and the Jewish Christians. (Creeds of Christendom, Vol. 1 § 17)​
 
Last edited:
I think it's worth noting that the Synod was essentially a Greek Synod, and there was a large contingent of the Russian Church 1682-1918 that had essentially Protestant doctrinal views. Russian bishop Feofan Prokopovich and his followers were essentially Lutherans in the Russian Orthodox Church.
The eastern church may be as corrupt as the Roman Church, but it has historically not been as homogenous.
 
Russian bishop Feofan Prokopovich and his followers were essentially Lutherans in the Russian Orthodox Church.

Feofan was certainly an interesting fellow. As a reformer in the ROC he had both good and bad influences, reducing superstitious tendencies but essentially making the Czar the Pope. How would you compare his theological views to Lutheranism? I know the ROC has always officially subscribed to the decrees of the 1672 SoJ with only a few minor grammatical tweaks, and I haven't seen anything that would indicate Feofan took issue with the decrees.
 
Feofan was certainly an interesting fellow. As a reformer in the ROC he had both good and bad influences, reducing superstitious tendencies but essentially making the Czar the Pope. How would you compare his theological views to Lutheranism? I know the ROC has always officially subscribed to the decrees of the 1672 SoJ with only a few minor grammatical tweaks, and I haven't seen anything that would indicate Feofan took issue with the decrees.
Feofan and his followers were open to other views of the Lord's Supper besides transubstantiation (or EO equivalent), they taught that the Scripture is only the 66 books of the bible (which Russian Orthodox still teach), they had a Melanchthonian Lutheran view of election (foreseen faith, similar to Arminians), and they taught justification by faith, and they instituted synodical government.
Feofan had read and references Polanus, as well as Lutheran writers, in his works.
 
Feofan was certainly an interesting fellow. As a reformer in the ROC he had both good and bad influences, reducing superstitious tendencies but essentially making the Czar the Pope. How would you compare his theological views to Lutheranism? I know the ROC has always officially subscribed to the decrees of the 1672 SoJ with only a few minor grammatical tweaks, and I haven't seen anything that would indicate Feofan took issue with the decrees.

Feofan, and in no small part the influence of Peter the Great, practically promoted a more synodal form of govt as opposed to the patriarchal system in Orthodoxy.
 
Feofan and his followers were open to other views of the Lord's Supper besides transubstantiation (or EO equivalent), they taught that the Scripture is only the 66 books of the bible (which Russian Orthodox still teach), they had a Melanchthonian Lutheran view of election (foreseen faith, similar to Arminians), and they taught justification by faith, and they instituted synodical government.
Feofan had read and references Polanus, as well as Lutheran writers, in his works.

Interesting... Do you have any accessible resources on this you can point to?

And yes, I should have been more careful by saying that all major Orthodox churches subscribe to the 18 articles of the SoJ, and not necessarily to the 4 addended questions, the latter of which addresses matters of canonicity. Feofan also took issue with the extent to which the veneration of icons was propounded in the questions.

In terms of church government, Feofan basically advocated the end of Patriarchy but his version of synodical rule instead made the Czar a virtual god and supreme over the church (see the attached compendium from some of his sermons).
 

Attachments

  • Feofan.pdf
    750.9 KB · Views: 2
Feofan basically advocated the end of Patriarchy but his version of synodical rule instead made the Czar a virtual god and supreme over the church (see the attached compendium from some of his sermons).

While extreme, that is not entirely removed from some Lutheran state churches where the state is head of the church.
 
While extreme, that is not entirely removed from some Lutheran state churches where the state is head of the church.

Perhaps (and I think you know my view on state churches...), but it's rather remarkable that in renouncing his initial Uniate upbringing and loyalties, Feofan essentially replaced the Pope with the Czar, a legacy that still afflicts the ROC today. While that paradigm was interrupted by communism, it has been revived in an amended but arguably even more ominous form under Putin's modern version of nationalism and "state religion."
 
Last edited:
Interesting... Do you have any accessible resources on this you can point to?

And yes, I should have been more careful by saying that all major Orthodox churches subscribe to the 18 articles of the SoJ, and not necessarily to the 4 addended questions, the latter of which addresses matters of canonicity. Feofan also took issue with the extent to which the veneration of icons was propounded in the questions.

In terms of church government, Feofan basically advocated the end of Patriarchy but his version of synodical rule instead made the Czar a virtual god and supreme over the church (see the attached compendium from some of his sermons).
This is the first volume of his theological text. There are five I believe.
The book Spiritual Revolution came out recently and it looks to be a good resource, but I haven't had the chance to read it yet.
 
This is the first volume of his theological text. There are five I believe.
The book Spiritual Revolution came out recently and it looks to be a good resource, but I haven't had the chance to read it yet.

While I can "work" my way through Latin, I currently have other priorities in that area, so I might hold out for a synopsis of some sort. Thank you though! I guess I wasn't aware of some of Feofan's specific exceptions to standard EO theology, but I take your word for it.

I have browsed some of Feofan's works linked to here.
 
Last edited:
As an aside, but with further regard to EO and Lutheranism, there was of course another interesting historical episode...

From 1574 to 1581, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Jeremias II (d. c.1584), engaged in a dialogue with two prominent German Lutheran theologians from the University of Tübingen, Jacob Andreae (1528–90) and Martin Crucius (1524–1607). The main purpose of the exchange was to explore the compatibility of Orthodox belief with the Lutheran’s Augsburg Confession, which had recently been translated into Greek, and to which Jeremias then responded point by point. In the end it was realized that the breadth and depth of their differences were simply too great to effect any hoped-for religious coalition.

P.S. Be sure and check out Jeremias' date inscription on p.54 of the linked book...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top