TheSynod of Jerusalem was anEastern Orthodoxsynod held in 1672. It is also called theSynod of Bethlehem.[1]
The synod was convoked[2] and presided over byPatriarch Dositheus of Jerusalem. The synod produced aconfession referred to as theConfession of Dositheus.[3]
In 1629, a small book in Latin, attributed toCyril Lucaris, thePatriarch of Constantinople, and commonly referred to as theConfession of Cyril Lucaris, was published inGeneva. It contained an eighteen-point summary of beliefs that conformed with Calvinist teaching. French, English and German translations appeared in the same year. AGreek version calledEastern Confession of the Christian Faith appeared in Constantinople in 1631 or 1633.[4][5] Lucaris was accused of adopting in this bookCalvinistic views and asserting that Calvinism was in fact the faith of the Eastern Church. His Eastern Orthodox defenders claim that the book was a forgery. Cyril did not disavow it in writing.[6]
Cyril Lucaris died in 1638.[2]
Lucaris'Confession was condemned by the 1638 Synod of Constantinople and the 1642Synod of Jassy.[5]
The Synod of Jerusalem is also calledSynod of Bethlehem, because the synod took place at theChurch of the Nativity atBethlehem.[1] It is also possible that the synod is referred to as Synod of Bethlehem becausePatriarch Dositheus of Jerusalem summoned it on the occasion of consecrating said Church of the Nativity in 1672.[2][7]
The synod was summoned in March 1672[7] and then took place the same year.[1]
The synod rejected the doctrine of theProtestant Reformers, and also attempted to "articulate the dogmatic heritage of [Eastern] Orthodoxy in face of the dispute betweenCatholics andProtestants". The synod "defined [Eastern] Orthodoxdogma in areas at issue in the WesternReformation".[1]
The Synod refuted theConfession of Lucaris article by article.[4]
The synod affirmed "the teaching role of the church and therefore oftradition against Protestantsola scriptura". The synod also affirmed "the role oflove andgrace, and therefore ofdeeds, injustification". The synod affirmed the sevenmysteries (sacraments) and that those are not "merely symbolic or expressive"; moreover, the synod affirmed that theChrist was truly present in the eucharist and taught this by using theGreek equivalent to theLatintransubstantiatio,[1]metousiosis (μετουσίωσις).[2][7] The synod also rejected the theses ofunconditional predestination and ofjustification by faith alone.[7]
The synod also "confirmed thecanonicity of thedeutero-canonical books of theOld Testament, rejecting theProtestant shorter,Hebrew canon".[1]
The Synod affirmed that theHoly Ghost proceeds fromGod the Father alone and notfrom both Father and Son.[8]
Theacts of the synod are signed by Dositheus, his predecessor theex-patriarch Nectarius, sixmetropolitans andbishops, theArchimandrite of theHoly Sepulchre, Josaphat, and a great number of other archimandrites,priests,monks, andtheologians. There are sixty-eight signatures in total. TheChurch of Russia was represented by a monk, Timothy.[2]
Theacts of the synod are dated 20 March 1672; they bear the title:Christ guides. A shield of the Orthodox Faith, or the Apology composed by the Synod of Jerusalem under the Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheus against the Calvinist heretics, who falsely say that the Eastern Church thinks heretically about God and Divine things as they do.[2]
The first part begins by quoting the text: "There is a time to speak and a time to be silent", which text is explained and enlarged upon at length. It tells the story of the summoning of the synod, and vehemently denies that the Eastern Orthodox Church ever held the opinions attributed to PatriarchCyril Lucaris. To show this, the relations between theLutherans andJeremias II of Constantinople are quoted as well as the acts of former synods (Constantinople andYassy). An elaborate attempt is then made to prove that Lucaris did not really write the famousConfession. To do this, theConfession is compared clause by clause with other statements made by him in sermons and in other works.[2]
In chapter ii, the synod declares that in any case Lucaris showed theConfession to no one, and tries to find further reasons for doubting its authorship.[2]
Chapter iii maintains that, even if Lucaris had written the confession attributed to him, it would not thereby become aconfession of the faith of the Eastern Orthodox Church, but would remain merely the private opinion of aheretic.[2]
Chapter iv defends the Eastern Orthodox Church by quoting its formularies, and contains a list ofanathemas against the perceived heresies of theConfession of Lucaris.[2]
Chapter v again tries to defend Lucaris by quoting various deeds and sayings of his and transcribes the whole decree of the synod of Constantinople of 1639, and then that of Yassy (Giasion) of 1641.[2]
Chapter vi gives thedecrees of this synod in the form of a "Confession of Dositheus". It has eighteen decrees (horoi), followed by four "questions" (eroteseis) with long answers. In these, all the points denied by Lucaris'Confession (relationship between the Church and the Bible, Eastern Orthodox understanding ofpredestination,cult of saints, sacraments, theReal Presence, theliturgy, liturgy being a real sacrifice, etc.) are maintained at great length and in the most uncompromising way. A short epilogue closes the acts. Then follow the date, signatures, and seals.[2]
Protestant writers say that the strong hostility toward Protestantism of the synod was the product of theJesuits, of theFrench ambassador at that time,Olivier de Nointel, and of other Catholics who were undermining the Eastern Orthodox Church.[2]
In their correspondence with the 18th-centuryNon-Juror Anglican bishops, the Eastern Patriarchs insisted on acceptance of the Synod's teaching on transubstantiation.[9]
The 1911Encyclopædia Britannica called the confession of the Synod of Jerusalem "the most vital statement of faith made in the Greek Church during the past thousand years."[3]
The1910Catholic Encyclopedia states the decrees of the synod "have been accepted unreservedly by the whole [Eastern] Orthodox Church. They were at once approved by the other patriarchs, theChurch of Russia, etc.; they are always printed in full among thesymbolic books of the [Eastern] Orthodox Church, and form an official creed or declaration in the strictest sense, which every [Eastern] Orthodox Christian is bound to accept."[2] Nevertheless, Eastern Orthodox MetropolitanKallistos Ware describes the synod as one among many held in the period of theecumenical councils whose "statements of faith have in part been received [...] but in part set aside or corrected".[10]
Protestant scholarPhilip Schaff wrote: "This Synod is the most important in the modern history of the Eastern Church, and may be compared to theCouncil of Trent. Both fixed the doctrinal status of the Churches they represent, and both condemned the evangelical doctrines ofProtestantism. Both were equally hierarchical andintolerant, and present a strange contrast to thefirst Synod held in Jerusalem, when 'theapostlesandelders,' in the presence of 'the brethren,' freely discussed and adjusted, in a spirit of love, withoutanathemas, the great controversy between theGentile and theJewish Christians."[7]
This article incorporates text from this source, which is in thepublic domain.We believe in one God, true, almighty, and infinite, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; the Father unbegotten; the Son begotten of the Father before the ages, and consubstantial with Him; and the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father, and consubstantial with the Father and the Son. These three Persons in one essence we call the All-holy Trinity, — by all creation to be ever blessed, glorified, and adored.
They are furious about the Non-Jurors' denial of transubstantiation (after the Bethlehem synod) and they call the Non-Jurors' denial, criticism, even hesitation, blasphemous
Part of a series on theBiblical canon | ||
|---|---|---|
| Background |  | |
| Christian canons | ||
