Russian Orthodox bishops emphasize that doctrine cannot be changed [CWN]

[CWN_News]

In a statement concluding a recent two-day meeting in Moscow, the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church emphasized the immutability of doctrine.The bishops cited Archbishop Seraphim …

More…

 

[Peter_J]

In a statement concluding a recent two-day meeting in Moscow, the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church emphasized the immutability of doctrine.

Aha!

 

[Kosta]

In a statement concluding a recent two-day meeting in Moscow, the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church emphasized the immutability of doctrine.The bishops cited Archbishop Seraphim …

More…

Unfortunately, I have to say that this title is a bit loaded. After talking to someone about this topic who knows much more than I on the matter, I’d like to respectfully refute the title and this article. The speech in question doesn’t say “doctrine can never ever be changed.” Rather, in the Orthodox Church, the underlying truths in the ecclesiastical-canons and the Old Testament do no change. There are deeper truths in the old and new laws, but our rules do change over time as religious leaders better understand the context of what canon law is saying. There’s also the diea

Allow me to give an example. The Torah is not immutable. If it were, then circumcision would be mandatory, without exception. There are deeper, immutable truths found in the Torah and the Church’s canons hammered out and rigorously formulated during the times of the Church Fathers at the Ecumenical Councils and synods. Another example that comes to mind is that churchmen are never supposed to be pray with heretics, and yet every year there’s a D.C. prayer breakfasts where His Eminence Archbishop Tikhon has blessed the food in the beginning or has said the closing benediction.

Besides, Catholics would really complain if our rules were absolutely unbending and not changeable, or else there’d be no way to reunite the Orthodox and Catholic Church unless the latter were to accept the former’s side of the disagreements completely.

As for the source of the misnomered title, the declaration cites a bishop from the era of the Second World War who mentioned the immutability of doctrine. With that being said, this new document does not elaborate much on that particular part of the citation in question. To quote the Orthodox Christian Information Center (although I personally am not a fan of many of the conclusions the OCIC draws in its articles, the Center does a good job in tackling this very topic) says in Section II “Jus humanum does not exist in the Church; all decisions are divinely inspired (“they are all enlightened by one and the same Spirit”), and they must remain indestructible and unshakeable. Does this mean then that the Orthodox Church by denying jus humanum, in contrast to Protestantism, only recognizes jus divinum? But then how is it possible to account for the assertion that the canons are indestructible and unshakeable when they are altered, albeit these changes are not, at the same time, a corruption or revocation of former decrees? The question approaches a somewhat obvious paradox. In fact, how is it possible to understand the actions of the Council in Trullo in changing the Apostolic Canon on the permissibility of a married episcopate and introducing celibacy, and at the same time affirming that this decision does not revoke or corrupt the canon? An attempt to understand the affirmations of the Council in Trullo must be, at the same time, an attempt to clarify the Orthodox teaching about the temporal and eternal in canon law.”& Section V. “The problem of changes or immutability in the canons is solved by their eternal-temporal character. The historical forms of the Church are pliable and alterable since the essence of the Church is embodied in definite historical conditions. Canonical decrees follow historical forms since they direct these forms towards a more complete expression of the Church’s essence. They are changed inasmuch as the Church’s life undergoes changes under various historical conditions. If the historical conditions in which the Church lives always remained constant, then the canons would not experience any changes. As truths of divine revelation they are indisputable—”We uphold the all-encompassing and unshakeable enactment of these rules” (Canon 2 in Trullo) —but in a relative, not absolute, sense; they are relevant only for their own age. The underlying dogmatic truth of the canons cannot be changed; only their application and embodiment in a canon can be altered by the historical existence of the Church.” The entire article can be found here: orthodoxinfo.com/general/the-canons-of-the-church-changeable-or-unchangeable.aspx.

This seems to draw back to the old canard that in Catholicism dogma is dynamic and ever-growing and relevant to the a new world and in Orthodoxy dogma is outdated and dead. That is an erroneous statement at best and blind prejudice at worst if you ask me.