By Professor Mikhail Nikolaevich Skaballanovich

The Christological heresies of the 4th-6th centuries and the series of councils they sparked raised the question of tradition in a new light. Only now was the inadequacy of Holy Scripture alone in resolving dogmatic disputes fully realized, and the need to appeal to the entirety of tradition for this purpose became evident. In other words, it was only now that the Church’s dogmas were being preserved. All conciliar creeds were essentially appeals to tradition against the distortion of Scripture, a distortion that could not be eliminated in any other way. At the same time, a new feature of tradition now emerged: its so-called paternity, in addition to the apostolicity established in the 3rd century: people began to inquire not only about the apostles’ views on the truths of the faith, but also about the ancient fathers.

The first to draw attention to this aspect of tradition was St. Athanasius the Great. “Look again at the most original tradition, at the teaching and faith of the universal church, the faith that the Lord transmitted, the apostles preached, the fathers observed.”102 And St. Athanasius repeatedly exhorts “to keep a good conscience before the fathers,”103 and reproaches heretics for “separating from the fathers.”104

The priests themselves Books are included in the canon to such an extent because “according to the tradition of the Fathers, those who were from the very beginning eyewitnesses and servants of the Word are recognized as divine.”105

Not all the Fathers of this period, like those of the preceding one, recognized the same importance for tradition. St. Cyril of Jerusalem is now approaching the opinions on this subject of St. Cyprian, and is he so alone? “What is not written, we will not inquire about” is the principle of St. Cyril.106 He forbids the reading of non-canonical books even at home.107

On the contrary, St. Basil the Great is one of the most energetic champions of tradition. The well-known classical passage on “dogmas and sermons preserved in the church (χυρυγμάΐων)”108, although it concerns primarily ritual tradition, is aimed at proving what is expressed in the doxology “Glory “To the Father”… the dogma of the equal honor of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son and for the first time clearly clarifies the need for the ideological preservation of dogmas alongside the external, verbal: “The apostles and fathers preserved the veneration of the sacraments through secrecy and observance in silence. For in general, that which is proclaimed aloud to the people and to everyone they meet is no longer a sacrament. This is the reason why other things, not set forth in Scripture, have been handed down, lest the effortless knowledge of dogmas, through habit, become easily despised by many. Dogma is one thing, and preaching another. Dogma is hushed up, while preaching is made public. But the form of silence is the obscurity which Scripture employs, making the meaning of dogmas, for the benefit of the reader, difficult to understand.”109 “Ancient dogmas inspire a certain reverence and respect for their age, as if for some gray hair.”110.

And Gregory the Theologian, in the very spirit of his theology, could not help but value tradition for the same reason, for the ideological preservation of dogmas within it. “Christ is the destroyer of the letter and the perfecter of the spirit.”111. “Oh, if only we, to our last breath, with great boldness, would preserve this faithful deposit of the holy fathers, who lived closer to Christ and to the original faith.”112. Is it possible to do without tradition in the face of heretics who “play with the words of the Bible as if they were dice?”113.

Gregory of Nyssa advances the idea that dogma is preserved by tradition in a logically defined form. “We preserve the faith preached by Christ and the apostles, pure and unchangeable to the letter, as we received it, recognizing as extreme blasphemy and impiety even the slightest distortion of the transmitted sayings.”114

St. John Chrysostom dwells on the question, raised back in the 3rd century, about the relationship between tradition and scripture and their comparative importance in the matter of preserving dogma: “In reality, we should have no need of the help of Scripture, but should lead such a pure life that instead of books, the grace of the Spirit would serve our souls, and like ink, our hearts would be all written with the Spirit — For He did not converse with Noah, and Abraham and his descendants, as well as with Job and Moses, through scripture, but from His own womb, finding their minds pure — And nothing written was delivered by God to the apostles, but instead of Scripture, the grace of the Spirit was promised. “He,” He said to them, “will remind you of all things.” It is also worthy of blame that we have need of Scripture and do not draw to ourselves the grace of the Spirit.”115 Given such premises, St. Chrysostom’s view of tradition must be the highest, and one can say that it reaches its zenith in him and Blessed Augustine: “Tradition is, seek nothing else.”116

Blessed Augustine also has a similar view of tradition. “Whoever relies on faith, hope, and love and holds them inviolably has no need of the Scriptures, even to reprove others.”117 “I would not even believe the Gospel if I were not compelled to do so by the authority of the universal church.”118 In Augustine, we find the first attempt at a formal, logical definition of tradition, which St. Vincent undertook in more detail. “That which the whole Church holds inviolably, and which was not introduced by councils, but has always been preserved within her, we rightly believe that it was handed down from the apostles.”119 Finally, Vincent of Lirins (abbot of the Lirins monastery in Gaul, † c. 450) wrote a special book on tradition, about which the previous fathers had spoken only in passing; We have in mind his Commonitorium (“Reminder”), in which Vincent, combining the views of his predecessors, especially St. Irenaeus, Tertullian and St. Athanasius120, gives a purely scientific (although somewhat formalistic) definition of tradition. Based on the question of how to avoid heresy and remain steadfast in the faith, Vincent considers it necessary to protect the faith with the authority of Holy Scripture (divinae legis anctoritate), and secondly, with the tradition of the universal church (ecclesiae catholicae traditione). No matter how perfect (perfectus) the first source of Christian knowledge, in “holy Scripture, in its very sublimity, not everyone understands it in the same sense”; Each of the heretics, who “scour all the books of the divine law,” “irrigating their malicious eruptions with the aroma of heavenly words,” understands it differently, “so that almost as many heads as there are, so many meanings can apparently be extracted from it”121. Therefore, true Christians “must ensure that the Holy Scripture is interpreted in accordance with the traditions of the whole Church and according to the rules of dogmatic teaching”122. Tradition is “reason,” “the feeling of the Church” (intelligentia ecclesiastica, sensus ecllesiasticua)123. “In the universal church let us hold to that which is everywhere, always, and has been believed by all (id teneamus, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est)124, because only that is truly and properly universal, as the very meaning of the word shows, which, if possible, embraces everything in general. And we will be faithful to this rule only on condition that we follow universality, antiquity, and agreement (universitas, antiquitas, consensio)”125. In the case of an important theological perplexity, “it is necessary to analyze and compare the opinions of the fathers who lived at different times and steadfastly remained in the communion of faiths: art. one universal church, who were respected teachers; “And if it turns out that not just one or two, but all of them together unanimously contained, wrote, taught something of this kind with a living voice, openly, frequently, and invariably, then we too must believe this without any doubt”126. But “these unanimous judgments of the ancient holy fathers must be followed not with regard to all minor questions concerning Holy Scripture, but mainly only with regard to the rule of faith”127. However scientific this definition of tradition may be, it is not free from ambiguities and omissions; the range of theological questions for the resolution of which one must turn to the “consent of the fathers” is not outlined in general terms; this “consent” itself is far from always verifiable, because matters here cannot, of course, be decided by a simple majority of votes. One cannot fail to note also the sharpness with which Holy Tradition is contrasted here with Holy Scripture; Both were first explicitly called two completely independent forms of revelation—an idea subsequently adopted by scholasticism and still dominating dogmatics today, but foreign in such decisiveness to the Eastern Fathers, not only the ancients (see above in Ignatius the God-Bearer and John Chrysostom), but also, for example, to St. John of Damascus: “The law and the prophets, the evangelists and apostles, the pastors and teachers spoke by the Holy Spirit.”128

It should be noted, however, that the questions unresolved by St. Vincent are hardly solvable by ordinary, logical means. But they were resolved historically—in the history of the Symbol.

The Symbol was a pan-Church attempt to systematize and resolve those theological questions raised by the history of Church life and thought, the answers to which had to be sought in the invisible depths of sacred tradition. No matter how adequately these questions were resolved there for the believing consciousness of every true Christian, one could still be content with vaguely conscious thoughts until it became necessary to express them in words. When the “confession of faith,” however prompted, required words, particular caution was necessary lest another thought be inserted into them. Thus arose the first need for verbal formulas for individual dogmas and their entirety—a need generated and nurtured by the danger of heresy, which had always threatened the Church, beginning from the earliest apostolic times.

It is not surprising that the symbol, if not destined, could have appeared during the apostolic era.

The Creed, according to its original purpose, which it still lacks, could have been a confession of faith at baptism. Several passages in the Epistles of the Apostles apparently show that in the time of the Apostles, baptism was preceded by a confession (ομοληία – public exposition) of faith. The most important of these passages are: in the Epistle to the Hebrews: “let us draw near with a true heart to the message of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and having our bodies washed with pure water (a clear reference to baptism), that we may hold fast the confession (ομοληίαv) of our hope without wavering”129; in the Epistle to Timothy: “you have confessed the good confession before many witnesses”130; and according to the Apostle. According to John, anyone who has anointing (χρισμα) is thereby initiated into wisdom and knowledge. 131 It is self-evident that the content of this confession was no longer only the content of the entire faith, but also of the so-called catechumenate. As far as the New Testament allows us to see, this confession had a purely Christological character. This is evident from the fact that baptism itself is called performed in the name of the Lord. 132 From this designation, one cannot conclude, as German church historians do, that the baptismal formula itself consisted of the invocation of the name of Christ, and not of the Holy Trinity. Particularly instructive in this regard is the passage from 1 Cor.: “But ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” 133 Baptism is performed with a relationship to the name of Christ, whereas illumination occurs in the Spirit without the mention of His name. Apostle John defines the commandment (εντολή) by its religious aspect, as faith in the name of the Son of God, Jesus Christ134. And the case with the disciples of Apollos135 does not say that those being baptized were instructed regarding the Holy Spirit, but that he who has not received chrismation has no sense of the Holy Spirit. Also, the expression in the Epistle to the Hebrews, “confession of hope,”136 does not prove much that the confession was about hope, because Christ is our hope. The object of confession in apostolic times is clearly indicated in the same epistle: “the apostle and saint of our confession, Jesus Christ.”137 Christ, the messenger of God exalted above the angels, as He is described in chapter 1 of Hebrews, and Christ, who became like a man, as He is described in chapter 2 of Hebrews, this is the object of confession at baptism in apostolic times. From the fact that some kind of confession of faith at baptism undoubtedly existed among the apostles, it certainly does not follow that the Creed, now used in the Roman Catholic Church under the name Apostles’ Creed, belongs to the apostles. This Creed is somewhat shorter than the Nicene Creed, but is not so simple and straightforward that it could have originated with the apostles. Its claim to apostolic origin was rejected at the Council of Florence by its Orthodox members, who said: “We do not have and do not see the symbol of the apostles”138. This antiquity is defended for this symbol by Rufinus († 410), who in his commentary on this symbol restores its original form by separating the additions made to it in comparison with the Aquileian symbol and proves that in this form, critically purified by him, this symbol came, in its letter, from the hands of the apostles, that they, before they had to disperse to preach in different countries, jointly compiled it so that it would serve for each of them as a guide for preaching (did they need such external guidance under divine inspiration?) and protection from disagreements, that the apostles only decided not to write it down, but to preserve it only orally like a military password, so that the enemies of the faith would not recognize it and abuse it. That the symbol of apostolic origin in its pure form was preserved only in the Roman Church, Rufinus explains by the fact that in the Eastern Church It required many additions in view of the heresies that arose there, from which the ancient Roman Church was freer.139 The authenticity of the so-called Apostolic Creed would only be beyond doubt if all its expressions and concepts could be found, even in echoes, in apostolic or apostolic writings. But, apart from the fact that, as we have seen, the confession under the apostles was to have an exclusively Christological character, the Apostolic Creed, as we shall see later, contains a number of terms developed by later theology.

Thus, the question of the composition and form of the Apostles’ Creed remains open even with the existence of a symbol bearing such an honorable name. The most reliable way to reconstruct this symbol would be from the apostolic writings. Indeed, in one place in Chapter 3, we apparently find a fragment from the apostles’ confession of faith at baptism. This passage is in 1 Corinthians: “For I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins (υ᾿ πε᾿ ρ) according to the scriptures140, and how he was buried, and how he rose (εγήγερται) on the third day according to the scriptures, and how he was seen of Cephas, then of the eleven.”141 Here the quotation ends, as the quoting õτι ceases. The non-Paulian expression “eleven” (Greek: Οι᾿ δωδςκα) and the mention of “was buried,” which was not required by the train of thought, clearly reveal the quotation; “Christ” and “also” are insertions. The connection in which this passage stands also makes it clear that not the entire confession of faith is cited here, but a part of it that has to do with the question treated in chapter 15 of 1 Cor. (about the resurrection of the dead). In other places of the epistles, one can think of other excerpts from the confession of that time (under the apostles). The following expressions can be recognized as such, with more or less validity: 1) “sending his Son,” 2) “his servant (παῖδα)”142; “being of (γενομε᾿ νου έκ) the seed of David”143; 3) anointing “with the Holy Spirit and power”, connected, perhaps, with baptism144; 4) “under Pontius Pilate (έπί Ποντίου Πιλάτου)”145; “having ascended (πορευθείς) into heaven”146; 5) sitting at the right hand (έν δεξιᾶ or έξ δεξίῶν) of God or the Majesty in the heavens or heavenly (τῆς μεγαλωσύνης έν τοῑς ​​ουρανοῑς or έπουρανίοις)147 “the angels and authorities and powers who submitted to him”148; 7) “who wants to judge the living and the dead”149. It is possible that in the confession in connection with Christ, God the Father was also mentioned. for example, with definitions such as “He who created (κτίσας) all things through Jesus Christ”150, “the living (ζῶν) and true”151 and “the quickener (ζωοπιοῶν) of all things”152. The list of historical facts was accompanied by an expression of faith in the sovereignty of Christ: “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved”153. This refers to the oral confession of Jesus as Lord. Similarly, the passages: “every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father”154 “no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.”155 sees in this the essence of Christian confession. It is less possible that the confession also concerned the upcoming act of baptism and its main gifts—the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit—or that it concerned the Holy Spirit in general.156

Notes:

102 Athanasius V., Epistle to Serapion.

103 Athanasius V., Epistle on the Council of Ariminum.

104 Ibid.

10539 Easter Epistle

106 Cyril Hierarch, Chapter XIII, 2.

107 Chapter IV, 3.

108 On the Holy Spirit to Amphilochius, Chapter 27.

109 Ibid.

110 Ibid., Chapter 29.

111 Gregory B., Homily 55, on Easter.

112Homily 11.

113Homily 1 on Theology.

114Gregory of Nyssa, Refutation of Eunomius, Book 2.

115Chrysostom, on Matthew, Demon. 1.

116On the Second Thessalonians, Homily 4.

117Augustine, On Christian Science, 1, 39.

118Protector of the Manichaeans, 5, 1.

119On the Baptism of the Donatists, 5, 24.

120Ponomarev, P., From the History of Holy Tradition. The Teaching on the Whole Tradition of Vincent of Lirinus. Orthodox Sob. 1906, 1, 163.

121Vincent Lear, Commonit. C. 2.

122Sar. 27.

123Sar. 23, 29.

124This thought of Vincent is the slogan of Old Catholicism, and the latter serves as the epigraph of the Old Catholic journal Revue international de theologie.

125Sar. 3.

126Vincent of Lirinus.

127Sar. 28.

128John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith IV, 17.

129Heb. 10:22.

1301Tim. 6:12.

1311John 2:20.

132Rom. 6:3; Eph. 4:5d.; Acts 19:5.

1331Cor. 6, 11.

1341John3, 23.

135Acts19, 1 et d.

136Eur.10, 23.

137Eur.3, 1.

138Concil. Flor. sect. 17.

139Rufin, Comm. per symbol ap. § 4. 5.

140 Wed, 1 Peter.3, 18: “about (περ`) our sins suffered.”

1411Cor.15, 3, 4.

142Gal.4, 4; Rome.8, 13; Acts 3:26; 7:27, 30.

143 Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8; Acts 13:23.

144 Acts 10:38; 4:27; Rom. 1:4.

1451 Tim. 6:13.

1461 Peter 3:22; cf. Mark 16:19.

147 Colossians 3:1; Ephesians 1:20; Rom. 8:34; Heb.1, 3;10, 12;12.2;8. 1; 1 Peter3, 22; Acts5, 31;7, 56.

1481Peter.3, 22; Eph.1, 21;4, 8; Col.2, 10; Wed 1 Cor.15, 25.

1492Tim.4, 1; 1 Peter4, 5; Acts10, 42.

150Eph.3, 9.

1511 Sol.1, 9.

1521 Tim.6, 13.

153Rom.10, 9.

154Phil.2, 11.

1551Cor.12:3.

156 Acts 2:38: “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” At least, we often encounter in the apostolic epistles the mention of God sending the promised Spirit through the special laying on of hands at baptism. From the internal connection of both gifts (the forgiveness of sins in baptism and the gift of the Holy Spirit in the sacrament, inseparably linked with baptism), it is clear that from the time of Paul, Christian baptism was defined simply as baptism “in the Spirit.” 1 Cor. 12:13: “By one Spirit we are all baptized into one body.” Acts 1:5. “John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” Matthew 3:11: “He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” Secbr.rg, Lehrb. d Dogmengeschichte, 163–165

Source in Russian: Skaballanovich M. Preservation of dogma in the Church // Works of the Kyiv Theological Academy. 1910. No. 9. P. 17-78.

Britain records its hottest day of 2026 as temperatures exceed 40°C across France

Western Europe faced another dangerous heat peak on Thursday, with the United Kingdom recording its highest temperature of the year and provisional readings exceeding 42°C in France. The repeated extremes are increasing pressure on hospitals, workplaces, water supplies and emergency services, turning heat adaptation into an immediate public-safety obligation.

The temperature reached 38.1°C in west London on 13 August, according to the Met Office, narrowly surpassing the previous 2026 high of 38°C recorded in June. The reading remained below the British August record of 38.5°C set in 2003, but came during what authorities classify as the country’s fifth heatwave of the year, according to a same-day report on the extreme temperatures.

French heat peaks above 42°C

Conditions were still more severe across France. Météo-France reported a provisional temperature of 42.5°C at Châteaumeillant in the central Cher department at 17:00 local time. If confirmed, it would be an August record for that monitoring station.

Provisional readings also reached 42°C at Saint-Laurent-du-Pape, 41.6°C at Joué-lès-Tours and 40.9°C in Bordeaux. Nantes, Rennes and Angers were among the cities registering temperatures unprecedented locally for August.

The national weather service classified Thursday as the peak of the episode across France as a whole. It described the continuing event as the country’s third heatwave of the summer, beginning on 28 July and persisting because temperatures in the south-east never fell sufficiently to end it nationally.

Relief was expected to begin along the Channel and Atlantic coasts on Friday before moving gradually eastward during the weekend. Much of eastern France, however, was forecast to remain between 35°C and 40°C, while the arrival of cooler air could produce thunderstorms.

Hot nights leave little time to recover

Daytime maximums tell only part of the story. Parts of western France experienced unusually warm nights, including provisional August minimum-temperature records of 23.6°C at Cholet, 23.1°C at Tours and 22.7°C at Bressuire.

Persistently warm nights prevent the body from recovering after daytime exposure. That is particularly dangerous for older people, infants, people with cardiovascular or respiratory illnesses and residents of poorly insulated homes. People living alone or without access to shaded and cooled spaces may also be less able to respond when early symptoms appear.

Heat risk is not confined to people conventionally described as vulnerable. Sustained physical work, protective clothing and prolonged exposure can overwhelm healthy adults, including hospital staff, construction workers, farm workers, delivery riders and municipal employees.

Repeated emergencies expose workplace gaps

The latest episode is renewing questions about whether labour protections are keeping pace with Europe’s changing climate. Workers cannot always follow general advice to remain indoors, avoid exertion or move activity away from the hottest hours.

Employers need plans that can be activated before conditions become dangerous. These include additional rest periods, accessible drinking water, shaded recovery areas, adjusted shifts and procedures for recognising heat exhaustion. Hospitals and care facilities require particular attention because cooling failures can threaten patients and staff simultaneously.

Warnings also need to reach migrants, tourists, homeless people and residents without reliable digital access. Information that exists only through applications or national-language announcements may not reach everyone facing exposure.

Drought compounds the danger

France’s weather service said soil dryness remained at record national levels as of 6 August following prolonged rainfall deficits and exceptional temperatures. Dry vegetation increases wildfire danger, while depleted rivers and reservoirs place competing demands on households, agriculture, industry and ecosystems.

Britain is also contending with widespread dry conditions and an unusually intense wildfire season. Such pressures demonstrate why heat, drought and fire cannot be managed as separate emergencies. Each can weaken the systems needed to respond to the others.

Adaptation must protect those with least choice

Earlier European Times coverage of western Europe’s record heat identified uneven preparedness as a growing social concern. Wealthier households can more readily obtain cooling, improve insulation or work remotely. Lower-income residents and people in insecure employment frequently have fewer options.

Repeated heatwaves therefore require more than emergency advice. Governments and municipalities need enforceable workplace protections, accessible cooling spaces, resilient hospitals, shaded public areas, safer housing and neighbourhood-level plans for checking on isolated residents.

The temperatures will eventually fall, but the underlying exposure will remain. Western Europe’s recurring heat emergencies are showing that climate adaptation is no longer a distant infrastructure programme. It is a present obligation to protect health, dignity and safe working conditions.

The Turkish parliament overwhelmingly passed a law that creates the legal framework for dissolving the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and continuing the peace process with the group. The legislation was supported by 468 lawmakers, including representatives of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s ruling Justice and Development Party, its nationalist ally, the Nationalist Action Party, and the pro-Kurdish Democratic Party.

The decision represents the most concrete institutional step yet towards ending the conflict between the Turkish state and the PKK, which has raged since 1984 and has claimed the lives of more than 40,000 people. For decades, clashes between Turkish security forces and the group’s fighters have become one of the most severe and protracted conflicts in Turkey’s modern history.

The new law aims to regulate the transition from armed conflict to a political and legal process. Among its key provisions is the provision of legal protection for former fighters who have not committed specific terrorist crimes. It also provides for the suspension of sentences for membership in the organization under certain conditions.

These provisions could prove crucial for the eventual reintegration of former PKK members. The aim is to ensure that the disbandment process does not remain a mere formality, but is followed by concrete mechanisms that allow those who have renounced armed struggle to return to civilian life.

However, the law has clear limits. It does not address the broader political and cultural issues related to the Kurdish population in Turkey. Not all issues surrounding the status of PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan, who has been serving a life sentence on Imrali Island since 1999, are affected.

This means that the adoption of the law is an important step, but it does not represent a final end to all controversies surrounding the Kurdish issue. For the process to be sustainable, a number of political issues related to the rights, representation and cultural identity of the Kurdish community will also need to be resolved.

The path to this solution began in October 2024, when the leader of the Nationalist Action Party, Devlet Bahçeli, made a surprise call for an end to the armed conflict. Bahçeli is a long-time ally of President Erdogan, and his position was particularly significant given the traditionally hard line of nationalist circles towards the PKK.

After this political signal, the process gradually acquired concrete dimensions. In February 2025, Abdullah Öcalan made an official call for disarmament and an end to the armed struggle. This was followed in May by the PKK’s decision to cease its armed activities.

The next major step was taken in July 2025, when the organization’s fighters symbolically burned their weapons during a ceremony in northern Iraq. The gesture was presented as a sign of the beginning of final disarmament and the transition to a new stage in the process.

For the Turkish government, the dissolution of the PKK would mean the end of one of the greatest long-standing threats to national security. For the Kurdish community, however, the significance of the process will depend on whether the political change is accompanied by real guarantees of rights and participation in public life.

The international aspect is also particularly important. The PKK has structures and influence outside Turkey, including in northern Iraq and Syria. Therefore, even the official dissolution of the organization in Turkey does not automatically mean the end of all its related structures and armed formations in the region.

Northern Iraq is a particularly sensitive area for Ankara. Turkey has been conducting military operations against PKK positions in the region for years, and the organization uses mountainous terrain in northern Iraq as a base for its activities. If the disarmament process is successfully implemented outside Turkey, it could also reduce tensions in relations between Ankara and Baghdad.

The situation is also related to developments in northeastern Syria, where Kurdish armed formations that Turkey considers to be affiliated with the PKK operate. This is precisely why the future of the peace process in Turkey could have an impact on broader security in Syria and Iraq.

The adoption of the law also shows an unusually broad political consensus in the Turkish parliament. Support from the ruling party, nationalists and pro-Kurdish political forces is significant, as the Kurdish issue has traditionally divided Turkish society and the political system.

The challenge for Ankara now is to turn the legal framework into a real process of disarmament and reintegration. Any serious incident or new violence could cast doubt on the political consensus that has been achieved. On the other hand, a sustainable end to the conflict would have significant consequences for Turkey’s security, economy and domestic political stability.

If the process is brought to a conclusion, it would be a historic change for a country that has been living with the consequences of armed conflict for more than four decades. The successful disarmament of the PKK could reduce the terrorist threat, limit the need for military operations and create the conditions for a new political approach to the Kurdish issue.

At the same time, ultimate success will not depend only on the adoption of the law. The practical handover of weapons, the fate of former fighters, the attitude towards Kurdish political forces and the ability of Turkish institutions to maintain dialogue will be key. It is these factors that will show whether the current process represents a temporary political agreement or the beginning of a lasting peace.

Illustrative photo: pexels-hilmiisilak-13464712

By Professor Mikhail Nikolaevich Skaballanovich

Tradition

The full significance of tradition in the original dogmatics of Christianity, the Christianity of the apostolic and immediate post-apostolic eras, is well elucidated in the aforementioned work by Seeberg, which in some places is indirectly directed against the Harnack school. We will allow ourselves to review the relevant pages of this book (in places softening the author’s theses), which until now Russian literature has not devoted even a bibliographical note to.

The earliest Christian communities felt themselves uplifted and carried by the Spirit of God. It was none other than the Spirit who possessed individuals, transformed them internally, and made them organs of divine influence upon their fellows. This Spirit apparently acts at times like a force of nature, so that one might sometimes think that He even draws people into non-Christian speech. “No one who speaks by the Spirit of God says, ‘Jesus is accursed.’”37 But most of all, His action was limited to spiritual and moral influence. Being the Divine power, He acted in human speech through personal communication. In the Gospel, His power became clearly manifest in faith and salvation. The Apostle Paul with particular insistence highlights this moral and spiritual element in the actions of the Spirit and places it in firm relation to the word of the believer.38 Christ and His Spirit act on individual members of the Church, imparting movement to their spirit. And this often occurs through the action of an individual on his brother. The diversely conditioned and adapted relationships of man to man are the conduits of the Spirit. Thus, through personally isolated teaching and influence, the transforming power of God can adapt itself to each individual person and give him precisely what he needs. God is not only the Creator of the world, not only the Lord of the Church; He, as the Holy Spirit of Christ, is the teacher and educator of each individual soul, for He comes to it in a way that it is capable of receiving Him. God moves souls not only through Christ, as the world-historical principle, but through all those who are moved by Christ and, receiving his impulse, pass it on. But this happens in such a way that precisely here and through this, the Spirit of God and Christ Himself moves the soul. Christ comes when the Spirit comes, for the Spirit receives from Christ what He proclaims. 39 Thus, the power of God in all aspects of life was demonstrated. They lived in a certain atmosphere of miracles, and from the words that one spoke to another about what they were experiencing, miraculous life flowed into the soul. And yet, apparently, as far as the sources allow, orgiastic and ecstatic acts are very rare in ancient Christianity. This is because the spiritual principle was historically limited. These boundaries were:

1) the authority of Christ’s words, including the image of Christ as it emerged in his preaching; 2) the Old Testament; 3) the authority of the historical apostleship. The concept of apostleship was defined, on the one hand, charismatically, through the possession of the gift of preaching,40 but, on the other hand, it also bore a historical stamp: the historical witnesses of Christ are apostles.41 By directing everything toward the significance of apostle in the latter sense,42 Paul greatly strengthened the authority of the historical apostleship, the exaggerated assessment of which he, however, wanted to limit. Cf. the 12 foundation stones of the New Jerusalem according to the Apocalypse. If 1 Corinthians 15:7, which lists the appearances of the risen Lord “to all the apostles,” can be applied to apostles in the general sense—missionaries—then in Paul’s time it could be firmly insisted that every missionary see at least the risen Christ. 4) The early Christian tradition (παράδσις), which provided more or less firm formulas and traditions for faith and moral life. Apostle Paul repeatedly states that such formulas existed.43 This is also confirmed by a number of frequently repeated formal expressions in the New Testament, for example, the trinitarian formula, which is continually assumed and cited when the connection of thoughts does not require it.44

This “tradition” contained certain formulas of doctrine, and then a catalog of virtues and vices45 – “paths” by which Paul, according to himself,46 taught everywhere. Apostle Paul defines “the beginning of the word of Christ” in his Epistle to the Hebrews47 as “repentance from dead works and faith toward God,” with which it is connected; “the doctrine of baptism, and the laying on of hands,” i.e. The teaching of baptism as a means of forgiveness of sins and of the gift of the Spirit through the laying on of hands as the beginning of living faith. This also includes the “teaching of the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.” Apparently, more detailed information about the work of Christ was not communicated to the catechumens. Since the Corinthians, like the Thessalonians, needed eschatological instruction, this last point is explored in the epistles of St. Paul, only in greater detail.

Such a “tradition” is constantly kept in mind by the apostolic epistles, constituting for the apostles themselves something as normative as the third and “words of Christ,” without being covered, however, by both. Besides “tradition”, παράδοσς, παραθη᾿ κη48 it bears among them many other names: (confession49, “faith”50, “truth”51 “teaching”52, “gospel”53 “healthy (υ᾿ γαίοντες) words”54, “words of faith”55, while “good” (καλή) or healthy teaching (διδασκαλι᾿ α)”56 means moral rules; this also explains the writing of a well-known monument, exclusively moralizing – Διδαχη’ των ιβ “Apoστδλωβν”; Barnabas also distinguishes the “word of faith” from the “commandments of doctrine” (διδαχης).57

Thus, from ancient times, alongside the free principle, the individualism of inspiration and enthusiasm, there stood a system of firm prescriptions, teachings, orders, customs, and historical authorities. The form remained not empty, but personal experience gave it content, and this experience became not a formless wandering of feeling, but adjoined the forms of the original knowledge of Christ. The struggle of the second century, around spirit and doctrine in their relationship, the struggle of faith-consciousness, is rooted, as we see, in the circumstances of the apostolic age. Even then, the spirit stood as a secondary (only) principle alongside the firm forms of church tradition, despite all the enthusiasm of the time. Enthusiasm quite accurately characterizes ancient Christianity in one respect. But this— This is not an exhaustive characterization. We must not forget how much of what is given, formal, accepted, and authoritative for teaching and practice is found in apostolic writings alongside the free expressions of the spirit.

So, in apostolic times, they possessed an unwritten tradition, an ecclesiastical doctrine, which centered on Christ. It provided the foundation for teaching and preaching, as well as for the pastoral leadership of the churches. Everyone knows that when we speak of Jewish traditions, they denote a certain complex of specific thoughts and prescriptions. Now, if we encounter similar terms in Christian scriptures, in a context that clearly points to firm traditions of doctrine and commandments, the inevitable conclusion is that the Church possessed not only an undefined common sers, but also a solid spiritual heritage. With regard to moral rules, hardly anyone would doubt this. And if so, then the same state of affairs existed with regard to “faith.”

The century following the apostles did not bring any significant changes in the norms of ecclesiastical religious consciousness. Then there is a firm Christian teaching.58 This is the “teaching of Christ” (χριστομαθι᾿ α), otherwise known as the “faith of Christ” or His “Gospel.” It is, as it were, the flesh of Christ, and next to it stands the “presbytery of the apostles.”59 This Gospel opposes false teachings, the dispute between which does not cease before the written Gospel. The use of the word “gospel” in the sense of the book of the Gospel is known, for example, to Ignatius, but primarily this word denotes Christian teaching in general; as in Διδαχή. In this very sense; the Church possesses the “apostolic ordinances,” or the “dogmas of the Lord and the apostles.”60

In this teaching, two parts are clearly outlined: λο᾿ γοι τής πι᾿ στεως and ε᾿ ντολαι᾿ διδαχης (theoretical and moral-practical), according to the expression of Barnabas.61 Thus, Ignatius deduces from the internal affirmation of the commandments and dogmas “life according to the flesh and spirit, according to faith and love, in the Son, in the Father and the Spirit, in the beginning and the end.”62 “I have known those who have evil doctrine, which ye suffer not to be sown among you, stopping your ears…, as stones of the temple of the Father, prepared for the building of God the Father, carried up on high by the instrument of Jesus Christ, which is the cross, by the rope of the Holy Spirit. Now your faith is your ascent (α᾿ ναγογεύς), love the way that leadeth to God. Be ye therefore companions (συ᾿ νοδοι), God-bearers and temple-bearers, Christ-bearers, saint-bearers, adorned in all things with the commandments of Jesus Christ”63. Particularly remarkable here is the comparison of the two trinities, the Divine and the moral—faith, hope, and love. Polycarp also knows the latter trinity as faithful64. What was taught in the hope of a pre-worldly, unearthly power and what was taught, experiencing this power in the spirit, could be concluded in The double trinity: Father, Son, and Spirit; faith, love, hope.

The New Testament writings were just beginning to gain general distribution and acceptance. All teaching was based on oral tradition, with its vagueness, sometimes reticence—and, most importantly, breadth. Along with the essential truths of doctrine, there was much that was irrelevant; there could be dubious and unworthy traditions (even the sayings of Christ and the apostles). Meanwhile, the criterion—Holy Scripture—was not open to public use. Already in New Testament 3, Christian life is guided, on the one hand, by the “spirit,” and on the other, by firm forms and norms. Even in later New Testament writings, a gravitation toward firm “commandments” is noticeable. The fact that the bearers of the “Spirit”—the apostles—contained His revelations in the firm form of scripture and themselves became authorities—led to less and less expectation of revelations from the Spirit. He lived within the previous revelations, and the new revelation had to be consistent with the authority of the revelation of Christ and the apostles.

In the first decades after the apostles, spiritual gifts were still powerfully active. Spirit-led wandering apostles and prophets were so common that deceivers often donned their masks. Besides the apostles, who carried out the mission, and the prophets, who proclaimed the truth, there were teachers, who guided a deeper understanding of the truth (according to Barnabas, a teacher teaches “that with your faith you may have perfect knowledge”).65 The shepherd of Hermas introduces us to the inspiration of the prophet of that time, and Barnabas is a type of teacher. In the proper sense, a prophet was the bearer of the Spirit—in him alone, the action of an unearthly power was clearly felt. Hermas, in spirit, soared over impassable spaces, had a series of visions, and barely achieved understanding of them. According to Hermas, a prophet, even one questioned, does not speak until the Spirit speaks within him and God wills it. Such inspiration sometimes appears even in natural speech: Ignatius says of himself: “And I cried out, when I spoke, with a great voice, the voice of God: hold fast to the bishop, the presbytery, and the deacons.”66 The prophets, as in v. 3, also performed symbolic actions.67 As long as the prophet is “in the spirit,” he is immune from criticism.68 At the Eucharist, the prophet says his own prayers.69

The Gnostics’ abuse of prophecy and their penchant for it led to a struggle against it and its weakening. The force that overcame it was, first of all, the incorporation of the New Testament sacred writings into the Old Testament canon, as has been noted. Particular importance was attached to the words of Christ (Papias), then to those of the apostles; in comparison with the apostles, even Ignatius the God-bearer feels like a poor servant. Gradually, the New Testament canon was defined by the four Gospels and the thirteen Epistles of Paul. The remaining books are still in doubt: for this reason, those subsequently excluded are included in the canon in places: Hermas, Barnabas, Diidachy, the Epistles of Clement, and others.

The diversity of concepts and expressions in this writing, which arose with exhortatory purposes, received explanations and application to life, as in the apostolic age, through church teaching, which offered simple thoughts and unambiguous formulas. The compilers of the canon presuppose such a firm measure of religious knowledge in their readers and therefore alone can impart to them “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” The gift of the Spirit elevated that church above the present, but no less so did the firm possession of religious knowledge. Not attempts at types of teaching, but a general and definite, faithful teaching constituted the enormous strength of the church of that time. For the monuments of that time, there is a firm Christian “teaching,” opposed to another, poor teaching; A written Gospel is more open to debate, but not this. This teaching is as practical as it is theoretical; it is the “way of life,” as opposed to the “way of death.” The firmness of this teaching contrasted with the vagueness of the Gnostics. Similarly, the Mishnah, for centuries, defined religion for the Jews without being written, serving as solid intellectual material for proselytism. But Christ, for the Christian neophyte, through inner experience, became far different from what the law was for the Jewish proselyte.72

All this leaves no doubt that, in the early days of Christianity, the fundamental truths of the faith were preserved in a strictly defined form, even in precise formulas, by church tradition. The latter was, so to speak, the tangible force in Christianity, the main nerve of its entire spiritual and ideological life. The full significance of this force, this figure, for contemporary Christian doctrine is recognized even by modern scholarship, which “is ready to believe that the preference shown by the apostolic fathers in the second century for oral tradition does not demonstrate the great authority that our Gospels supposedly enjoyed.”73 This significance was well recognized in that era, too.

For Clement of Rome, Christian tradition is rooted in the Old Testament. Against the Corinthian deniers, St. Clement of Rome defends the principle of hierarchy with, among other things, the following arguments: “This is not a new institution, for many centuries before, it was written about bishops and deacons,” and cites the Levitical priesthood and Isaiah 60:17 but LXX.74

For Ignatius the God-Bearer, tradition is Christ himself on earth. To those who spoke; “I will not believe it unless I find the Gospel in the antiquities (τοις άρχαι᾿ οις could be the Old Testament), St. Ignatius objects: “but for me the most ancient thing is Jesus Christ; truly ancient for me is His cross, His death and resurrection, and the faith given by Him.”75 The composition of this “faith” is shown by the following words of St. Ignatius: “Let us have recourse to the Gospel as to the flesh of Jesus, and to the Apostles as to the presbytery of the Church.”76 The Gospel here obviously means everything that is known about Christ and what He said, and the Apostles – everything that has come down from them; the first for St. Ignatius is the same as the living, earthly Christ, the second is the same as the teaching authority of the Church. According to Eusebius, Ignatius urged Christians to “hold fast to the apostolic traditions, which, for safety, he deemed necessary to confirm with his own testimony and to commit to writing” (the latter, in context, refers to the famous epistles of St. Ignatius). Thus, Ignatius the God-Bearer already recognized the inadequacy of the ideological preservation of dogma alone—in tradition.

For St. Polycarp, tradition is the guardian of truth. “Leaving vain and false teachings,” he exhorts Christians, “let us turn to the word handed down from the beginning” (Papias).

Papias draws attention to the vitality of tradition. He says of himself that he always conformed to those who “hold the commandments handed down from the Lord for faith and originating from the Lord Himself”… “for I believed that bookish knowledge would not be as beneficial to me as a living and constant voice” (Papias). Gnosticism and anti-Trinitarianism directed theological thought with particular force toward tradition, on the basis of which alone the struggle against new heresies was possible.

St. Irenaeus emphasizes the apostolic nature of tradition. According to him, the Church “teaches and transmits as if it had one mouth: for although there are different languages ​​in the world, the power of tradition is one and the same”80; “all who desire to see the truth can learn the tradition of the apostles in every church”81; “the apostles, like a rich man in a treasury, completely placed in the church everything that pertains to the truth”82. “If the apostles had not left us writings, should we not follow the order of the tradition handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches? This order is also followed by many barbarian tribes, who have their salvation without a charter or ink, written in their hearts by the Spirit… As a result of that ancient apostolic tradition, they do not even admit into their minds the monstrous speech of heretics.” Compared to the Jewish Christians, the faith of the pagans is “more noble (generosior), for they obeyed the word of God without being taught by the Scriptures.”83 “True knowledge (γνωσις) is the teaching of the apostles and the original constitution (συ᾿ στημα) of the Church throughout the world.”84 “The greater or lesser knowledge of some does not consist in changing the content itself, but in inventing another God, another Only-Begotten, and in carefully examining the meaning of what is said in the parables and agreeing with the content of the faith.”85

The lawyer Tertullian uses the fact of the existence of tradition in the church as proof of the truth of church teaching according to the legal principle of prescription (praescriptio). “It is impossible to think that heresy is older than doctrine.”86 “Who are you, when and where did you come from, what are you doing on my land, you who do not belong to me? By what right do you, Marcion, cut down my forest? By whose permission, Valentinus, do you divert my springs? I have owned this from ancient times, I was the first to take possession of it, I have a faithful deed of transfer from the founders to whom the property belonged, I am the heir of the apostles”87. The Gnostics are concerned with the problems of pagan religion; they develop the teachings of Plato and the Stoics. And “we have no need of curiosity [curiositate) after Christ Jesus, nor of investigation (inqnisitione) after the Gospel. Since we believe, we desire nothing more than faith”88. “To know nothing contrary to the rule of faith is to know everything”89. “Seek until you find; and when you have found, you must believe”90. Church positivism reaches its greatest development in Tertullian: credo, quod traditum est.91 Tertullian was the first to draw attention to the impossibility of correctly understanding Holy Scripture without tradition. “There is nothing in our teaching that is contrary to Holy Scripture. We are what Scripture is from its very beginning.”92

Clement of Alexandria also insists on this last idea: “Those who interpret the Scriptures contrary to Church tradition have lost the rule of truth.”93 But Clement deviates somewhat from the general patristic teaching on tradition by admitting a special secret tradition in the Church (παρα᾿ δοσις ή γνωστική),94 which Church teachers used when interpreting Holy Scripture. Scriptures, following the example of the Savior, who revealed to the apostles the special hidden meaning of Scripture,

According to Origen, “the object of faith should be only that truth which in no way diverges (discordat) from the apostles and church tradition”95, “We must not deviate from the original church tradition and believe (the scriptures) in any way other than what the churches of God have handed down to us in succession. Only the church does not take away either word or meaning from the brilliance of truth found in Scripture”96, Together with Clement, Origen allows for the highest “teacher”97 tradition: Origen characterized the Apostle Paul as “one who was deemed worthy to be a minister of the New Testament not by letter, but by spirit, who wrote not to all churches, and only to a few,” and the Apostle John, as one who, “leaving one gospel, confessed that it would be possible to write so many books that the world itself could not contain, and, having written the Apocalypse, received the order to remain silent and not write anything about the voices of the 7 thunders”98.

St. Cyprian of Carthage had to struggle with extremes in the veneration of tradition (regarding the question of the rebaptism of heretics, which, contrary to Cyprian, the Roman bishops did not want to allow, citing the ancient custom of their church). St. Cyprian agrees to follow only tradition “proceeding from the Lord’s and the Gospel authority or from the commands and epistles of the apostles,” he does not agree “to prefer human tradition to the Divine command, to follow custom without truth,” and refers to the Savior’s denunciation of the Pharisaic traditions.99 Similar thoughts are expressed by St. Cyprian regarding another issue—the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist with wine, and not with water, as the Encratites did.100 Here and there, the matter concerned ritual tradition that contradicted the spirit and even the letter (the second case) of St. Scripture, about “the traditions of men contrary to the Divine institution,” therefore the Protestant assertion that the first refutation of tradition came from Cyprian is unjust; on the second issue, he himself refers to “the rule of the Gospel truth and the Lord’s traditions.”101

Notes:

37 1 Cor. 12:3

38 1 Cor. 2:4: “My speech and my preaching were not with words stumbling block to human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power”; 1 Thessalonians 1:5: “Our gospel came to you not in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit”; Ephesians 6:17: “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.”

39 John 14:18 et seq. 16:8–11 et seq.

40 1 Cor. 12:29: “All the apostles have eaten”; Eph. 4:11: “He gave these apostles.”

41 The election of Matthias; Heb. 2:3: “salvation… was made known to those who heard in us.”

42 Gal. 1:1: “Paul, an apostle, was not of men.” 1 Cor. 9:1: “Are we an apostle?” 15:7: “I am not worthy to be called an apostle?” 2 Cor. 11:5: “for I know nothing of those who went before me as apostles.”

431 Cor. 11:23: “I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, even as the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed”… 15:3: “For I delivered to you of the first time what I also received”; 1 Cor. 11:2: “But I praise you, brethren, “For you remember all that is mine”; 2 Thessalonians. 3:6: “We command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you separate yourselves from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which they received from us.”

44 Matthew 28:19: “baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Luke 24:49: “Behold, I send the promise of the Father… you will be clothed with power from on high.” 2 Corinthians 13:13: “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the Father and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit.” 2 Corinthians 1:21: “who confirms us with you in Christ.” 1 Corinthians 12:4: “the divisions are gifts.” 6:11: “But you were washed, then you were sanctified, then you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of your God”; Rom. 13:16, “That I might be a minister of Jesus Christ, ministering the gospel of God among the Gentiles, that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable and sanctified by the Holy Spirit”; v. 30: “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, cooperate with me in your prayers to God for me”; Eph. 2:21-22: “In whom every thing that is built together grows into the church: holy in the Lord, in whom you also are built together for a dwelling place of God by the Spirit”: 4:3-6: “one body, one Spirit” .. 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14; “God chose you from the beginning for salvation through holiness of the Spirit and faith of the truth, to which he called you by your gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ”; 1 Peter 1:2: “elect by the sight of God the Father, for holiness of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ”; 4:14: “if you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you, for the glory and the Spirit of God rests upon you.” Jude 21: “Praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.” A number of passages in the farewell homily about the Spirit-Comforter (cf. Rev. 1:4-5; 3:12). Simon Magus also assumed the Trinity when he claimed to be the Messiah and Helen to be his Thought (ἕiiioa); he associated this view with naive modalism.

45 Phil. 4:9; Gal. 5:19-23, etc.

461 Cor. 4:17.

47 Heb. 6:1-2.

482 Thessalonians 2:15; 2 Tim. 2:2.

491 Tim. 6:1-2.

50 Jude 3, etc.

511 Peter 1:22 and etc.

52Rom. 6:17, etc.

53Rom. 2:16, etc.

542Tim. 1:18

551Tim. 4:6

561Tim. 4:6, etc.

57Barnabas, Epistle 16:9

58Diδ 2:1; Ignatius, Eph. 9:1

59Ignatius, Philadelphus 5:1

60Ignatius, thral. 7:1; Mag. 13:1

61Barnabas, Epistle 16:9

Source in Russian: Skaballanovich M. Preservation of Dogma in the Church // Works of the Kyiv Spiritual Academies. 1910. No. 9. P. 17-78.

By Professor Mikhail Nikolaevich Skaballanovich

There is something firm, constant, and unchangeable in Christian doctrine. This is what we call dogma. Such a stable element is also present in the doctrines of all other religions. But just as Christianity so surpasses these other religions that, in comparison, they can hardly be called religions, so there must be a great difference between the dogma of Christianity and any other, a difference not only in content (material), but also in character and form. No other dogma can possess such firmness, immutability, and strength as the Christian one. It is as if God Himself, into whose being the dogma strives to enter by the only true path, imparts to it, through this ideological attachment, something of its own immutability and immutability. Our faith is the faith of Noah and Abraham. The fundamental content of our faith and theirs is the same, and the details are unimportant. Heaven and earth change, preparing their “passage,” but this faith and dogma of piety loses not a single iota or trait of its content, being the best image and witness of God on earth, the true voice of the eternally unchanging God in the changing reality around us. In this regard, no religion offers anything comparable to Christianity. The religious views of Hesiod and Homer, on the one hand, and Euripides and Sophocles, on the other, are so vast that unity and commonality often only reside in the names of the gods. The most astonishing thing about this unchanging element of Christian doctrine is that it does not suppress religious thought, but that the latter can operate upon it, rework it, and make it entirely new. Christian doctrine, thus, without changing in its foundations and essence, allows the living work of the mind upon itself and, through this, provides a union of solid stability and firmness with movement and life, impossible in other religions. Thus, dogma, in the sense and form in which it exists in Christianity, is something possible only here; it is a unique and original phenomenon of Christianity.

Denoting an unchanging element in Christian doctrine, dogma cannot be subject to any development or perfection. The fundamental characteristic of dogma is forgotten when people speak not only of its development, but also, for example, of its revelation, precise definition, and so on. Even if the content of dogma gains greater clarity, distinctness, and validity over time, this will be something new and not unimportant in dogma. It is commonly said that the form of dogma, its formula, changes, but not its content and thought. But a) who does not know how inseparable form is from content? b) in dogma, its formula is precisely what is most constant, as we hope to demonstrate.

Even more so, people’s understanding of dogma could not change—for this understanding is the essence of the matter; dogma is the understanding of truth by Christians, by the Church. Dogma could be expressed in different words at different times, just as one thought often allows for different forms of expression. But beneath these words always lay a single thought, transcending the words that expressed it and therefore requiring different expressions. This thought, this “mind,” was one for all Christians. They possessed the “mind of Christ.” For those who possessed such a thought, such a mind, any deviation from it was immediately apparent. The subject at hand was one about which there could be no two opinions or thoughts.

But beyond this thought, this series of unchanging propositions of religious faith, intellectual work was possible. These propositions could serve as premises for a whole series of conclusions, generalizations, constructions, assumptions, aspirations, and so on. They could be compared with a number of other propositions, with the conclusions of science, illuminated, and clarified by them. In this way, dogma could enter the history of human thought in general, and from this perspective, it is possible to speak of the history of dogmas. It is the history of their clarification.

This history alone can solve the difficult task of separating dogmatic from non-dogmatic doctrine.

Not all theological propositions and not all manifestations of popular faith are dogmas or are made into them, says Seeberg. The concept of dogma, according to current usage, refers to the formal recognition of certain propositions by the organized church. Dogmas are expressions of church faith, and therefore they are established by the church, even if political interests sometimes interfered with this establishment (Council of Chalcedon). Behind the revelation and formulation of dogma stands, as dogma, the faith of the church and the need for an ecclesiastical (religious) disposition. This is evident from the fact that all dogmas, in general, fundamentally relate to salvation and redemption. Although dogmas are of divine, revealed origin, since their formulation and expression, which we clearly recognize, were developed by man under a variety of influences and accidental circumstances, the question always arises as to whether they fully express the ideas of redemptive faith or whether the dogma, or rather its given form and expression, have been transcended and infused with alien elements from other religious forms, for example, from legal relations or natural religions. Thus, it may happen that elements of lower religious levels have at times penetrated the ordinary (everyday) and even scientific understanding of the Christian faith. This is inevitable, since dogmas have become an integral part of popular culture.”2 For example, with regard to the dogma of atonement, it has already been established that legal concepts and legal interpretation, never sanctified by the Orthodox Church, have been introduced into the formula currently accepted by Russian dogmatists; they have been borrowed here from Catholic and Protestant dogmatics. The same can be said, according to Seeberg, about the influence of the principles of naturalistic religions on the presentation and disclosure in our dogmatics of the doctrine of creation, the origin of man, the origin of the human soul at birth, the fate of man after death and the last judgment, etc. “Do such influences and elements distort dogmas? For the most part, they are completely harmless to them, and most importantly, they are inevitable and necessary in the process of their disclosure. True, the element of mobility and chance often acts, complicating the historical examination of religion. Sometimes One is amazed at how strongly purely political and impure personal motives, the force of inertia, and deep partisanship played a role in the formulation of dogmas. This can even give rise to distrust of these formulas. But one cannot look at individual individuals, as well as entire groups of them and the official bodies that developed dogma, in isolation. They are only instruments, conduits of broad spiritual aspirations; they created an image for the vague movements and needs of the great masses, either forming thoughts from premonitions or drawing and developing conclusions from thoughts. The councils and their leaders did not represent their own, arbitrary inventions, but they found words for the feelings and aspirations of the entire life of their time. It was not personal sentiments and political intrigues that created dogma, but the religious life of the church. It was not so much that a certain Arius thought one way, and a certain Athanasius another, and that Emperor Constantine cared about unity in political interests, and this caused the Nicene redefinition, but all these individuals with their Their power and persuasion were merely instruments through which a great process of inner necessity was accomplished. Ultimately, they were not masters, but servants of historical development; they brought about events as extraordinary means, not as producers. Otherwise, history would have turned into a collection of heroic tales, all beginning with the words, “Once upon a time there was a man.”

Thus, dogmatics teaches us to understand the guiding threads of all church development. But in their exposition and revelation, dogmas influenced the life of the church more profoundly and powerfully than might appear to a superficial observer. Just as dogma must be explained from church life, so too must its influence on that life be demonstrated. Protestantism provides proof. If so, then the most fundamental question about dogma is the question of its preservation in the church. Could the church, and in what way, by what means, preserve within itself the precious treasure of dogmatic teaching, instilled in it by God over centuries and taught with particular clarity by Christ? It was not so much the thought process itself, the attempts to delve into and elucidate it, however lengthy and complex this work, that was important for dogma, as its preservation. And no less difficult than reflecting on dogma was its preservation. If we examine the process of this preservation, we will easily discover two aspects, two types or stages. First and foremost, this preservation was ideological and intellectual, taking place within church tradition, understood in the broadest sense, since it included Holy Scripture as the expression of apostolic tradition. This preservation then turned to the aid of human words and the pen: attempts arose to protect dogma from change through verbal formulas—symbols and creeds.

Consequently, the question of preserving dogma in the church is divided into two subsets: the question of tradition as the ideological, intellectual treasury of dogma, and the question of symbols as formulas of dogma. A consideration of both questions must be preceded by a picture of the very development of the concept of dogma and the term “dogma” within church consciousness, for only with this development, from the moment of a distinct awareness of the dogmatic element, could Christianity apply particular diligence to the reliable preservation of dogma. The Formation of the Concept and Term “Dogma”

The concept of dogma, in almost all its current clarity and fullness, was formed in the Christian Church—or, more accurately, scholarship—very early, during the era of the first ecumenical councils. Christianity adopted a word from classical Greek for this original concept, which it itself had developed. Like any word, it is far from adequately expressive of this concept, but it is more suitable than others. Being a verbal noun from δοκέω—δόγμα, it has the same meaning of opinion, thought, but by intensifying the root character and creating a firm and energetic γ, it imparts to the concept, opinion, and thought precisely the flavor of firmness, authority, stability, and grandeur that is conceived in the Christian concept of dogma and which constitutes the complete opposite of δόξα with its light, playful ξ.

The meanings in which the word is used by the classics vary, but always have a nuance of this “firmness of thought.” In Xenophon, δόγμα is the highest order to the troops3; in Gorodian, it is a decree of the Senate4. Also in B. 3. In Daniel, it refers to royal decrees5 and laws6. In the Book of Esther, the issuance of a decree on the extermination of the Jews is expressed by the verb δόγματίζειν7; in 2 Macc.8, it is the people’s decision to establish a holiday in memory of deliverance from enemies. The Gospel of Luke also uses the word in this way, calling it a decree on a census9, and in the Book of Acts, imperial decrees10. But the word has long since, also since classical antiquity, acquired, so to speak, a practical meaning: that of law, and a purely theoretical meaning: that of thought. This latter meaning, once the word was adopted by ecclesiastical language, only needed to be revealed in order to give it its true meaning—”legislated thought”—in conjunction with the first meaning. Thus, Cicero already refers to the use of the word dogma regarding indisputable and unquestionable philosophical propositions. 11 The use of the word in the Book of Acts, in the story of how Paul and Timothy, passing through the cities of Asia Minor, “delivered to them the statutes—δόγματα—ordained by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem”12, where the word apparently denotes the decrees of the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem, constitutes a transition to the later Christian meaning of the word—regarding the decrees of the Council. Nevertheless, here too the word still has a purely practical connotation, since the decrees of the Apostolic Council were precisely of this nature. And the Apostle Paul understands only this practical meaning of the word. In the expressions: “having abolished the law of the commandments by teachings – ενδόγμασι –”13 and “having destroyed the handwriting of teachings which was against us”14, he calls the prescriptions of the law of Moses δόγματα for their imperative character. This is confirmed by his use of δογματίζεθαι in the same sense, unsympathetic to the apostle, in the context of the last passage: “if you have died with Christ to the rudiments of the world, why do you, who live in the world, adhere to the ordinances (δογματίζεσθε, Slav., “consider”): do not handle, do not taste, do not handle”15. (In the Russian translation of the Bible, δόγματα in the two passages of Apostle Paul cited above is unfairly considered to designate Christ’s teaching.)

For the apostolic fathers, the word originally had a purely practical meaning. “Now this is what you should do concerning the apostles and prophets, according to the ordinance (δόγμα) of the gospel: receive every apostle that comes to you,” we read in Διδαχή16. Apostle Barnabas calls the Mosaic laws regarding unclean animals dogmas, and in another place he says: “The Lord’s dogmas are three: the expectation of life, its beginning, and its consummation.”17 The latter usage is closer to the current meaning than the previous ones. It is even closer in Ignatius the God-Bearer, where it denotes the entire Christian teaching, but primarily from the practical side: “Strive to be established (βεβαιωθήναι) in the dogmas of the Lord and the apostles, so that in everything you do you may prosper well in body and spirit, in faith and love, in the Son and in the Father and in the Spirit, in the beginning and in the end.”18 Tatian19 and Origon use the word in the sense of the entire Christian teaching (secundum dogma nostrorum, or – secundum ecclesiae fidem; των κατά χριστιανισμό σωτηρίων δογμάτων)20.

In the Fathers of the 4th and 5th centuries. The word is already a terminus technicus, almost in the current sense. Cyril of Jerusalem21, Gregory the Theologian22 call dogmas the truths of doctrine taught to catechumens (the trace, the most important and fundamental truths of Christian doctrine), and the former considers them as necessary for piety as good deeds. “The image of piety consists of two things: pious dogmas and good deeds. And dogmas without good deeds are not pleasing to God, and deeds performed without pious dogmas are not accepted by God. What is the use of knowing dogmas about God well and shamefully committing adultery?”23. Here, therefore, is given a distinction between dogmas and moral demands, which is not characteristic of the fathers of the 2nd-3rd centuries, assimilating a speculative character to them. The same is true for other fathers of the 4th-5th centuries. With the assimilation of such a meaning, a word acquires a special aura of grandeur, and it is rarely used without the highest epithets. Basil V. calls dogmas divine and immutable.24 John Chrysostom and Gregory of Nyssa call dogmas ecclesiastical.25 Blessed Theodoret calls them apostolic.26 Lactatius says that Christ taught the apostles and dedicated them to preaching his dogma and teaching.27

The most precise and closest to the present definition of the concept of “dogma” from the church writers of that time is found in Vincent of Lirin, also famous for his teaching on the Church and its universality: “catholic dogma, i.e. the universal and most ancient faith (catholicum dogma, id est universalis et vetusta fides)”; “It is not natural for the dogmas of heavenly philosophy to be subject to any change, truncation or mutilation,” “like an earthly institution, which can be perfected only by continuous corrections or censures.”28 A similar understanding of dogma is found in one homily of the 4th century, attributed to St. Chrysostom, on the words: “By what authority do you do this?”, where the author, addressing a heretic who is mistaken about the Holy Trinity, says: “much of what we say is said polemically, and not dogmatically (άγονιτικώς κηρύτεται, ού δογμάτικώς); before me “the same as for every believer, the dogma of piety stands unshakable.”29 At the same time, the word does not lose its broader meaning. St. Irenaeus also speaks of dogmata impia et irreligiosa30. Vincent31 speaks of the dogmas of heretics. Eusebius32 speaks of δο᾿ γματα άθεα; Augustine – of pestifera et mortifera dogmata33. Theodoret about μυσαρα (vile) δο᾿ γματα34. Sozomen – about δο᾿ γματα έλληνικά – the beliefs of the Greek religion35; Isidore of Pelusium calls Socrates “the legislator of Attic dogmas.”36

However, even the ecumenical councils, although they use the word in its current sense (Sixth Ecumenical Council, Canon 1: “If anyone does not maintain and accept the dogmas of piety… let him be anathema”), call their dogmatic definitions δρος. The Kormchaya Kniga (Kormchaya Book) first labels these definitions as dogmas. But it’s not the name that’s important, but the idea. By the end of the 4th century, no educated Christian could doubt the term “dogma.” Thus, gradually, in the ecclesiastical consciousness, and often in ecclesiastical literature, this concept, new both for paganism and even for Old Testament theology, took shape, new in some of the aspects that now came to be understood within it. True, it signified that purely theoretical (with the elimination of the practical sphere) teaching about God, the “heavenly philosophy,” in the words of Vincent, which was far from alien to all pre-Christian humanity; it signified a teaching that had its foundation in revelation (which teaching was also in the Old Testament) – the teaching of God, the Lord, Christ, the apostles, but it also noted that feature of this teaching, that the latter passed through the ecclesiastical consciousness (after all, the crown meaning of the word “to think,” “to think” is “thought,” “opinion”), a consciousness in its collective infallible – that it became ecclesiastical and “unshakable” (Basil the Great), like the church. Notes

1 Following Catholicism, which recently proclaimed a new dogma and justified it by claiming that it was implicitly contained in the previous doctrine, our best dogmatists are also falling into this error. While they attempt to soften this thought, and to this end, they fall into the contradiction “Religion is a matter of the soul,” we read in one dogmatics a quotation from Vincent of Lirins: “Let it be likened to bodies; with the increase of years, bodies reveal their members, but remain what they were. As many members as babies have, so many as adults; and if anything is added with the passage of years, it all existed before in embryo, so that later, in the elderly, nothing new is discovered that was not already hidden in children. The dogmatic teaching of the Christian faith must also necessarily follow this law of progress, even though it may strengthen over the years, expand over time, and rise over the centuries, yet it remains indestructible and undamaged, whole and perfect, in all the subdivisions of its parts, in all, so to speak, its members and senses, without the slightest trace of change, without any loss in its content, without any alteration of its definitions — Dogmas, before the mind that studies them, “continue to appear,” the author himself continues, “not in their pure, original form, in which they are contained in divine revelation, but in a more or less developed form —- as having already passed through various and many stages of their development.” Here everything is based on comparison (with an organism), which is not proof, and the development of dogma is directly permitted. “While recognizing the immutability and imperfection of Christian doctrine in its content,” we read in another dogmatics, “the Orthodox Church does not, however, reject the possibility of a certain kind of perfectibility and development (!). But it posits this perfectibility and development in the precise definition and explanation or disclosure of the same dogmas, immutable in their essence. The perfectibility and development of Christian doctrine, therefore, can have not an objective, but only a subjective, relation to human consciousness, to the assimilation and understanding of dogma by people.” What is dogma without a relation “to human consciousness,” “to its assimilation and understanding by people”?

2Seeberq L., Lehrbnch der Dogmengeschiehte, Leipz. 1908, I, 1–3.

3Xenophon, Anubis. III 3, £40; I, 6.

4Herodian. Hist. VII, 10

5Dan. 2:13; 3:10; 6:9.

6Dan. 6:8–15.

7Ezekiel 3:9.

82Mac. 10:8; 15:36.

9Luke 2:1.

10Acts 17:7; In Thessaloniki, Paul and Silas were accused of “doing contrary to Caesar’s decrees, saying that another Jesus is king.”

11 Cicero. Quaes. Acad. I. IV c. 9.

12 Acts 16:4.

13 Ephesians 2:15.

14 Colossians 2:14.

15 Colossians 2:20.

16 Deidachi 11:3.

17 Barnabas, Epistle 10:9, 1:6.

18 Ignatius B. Magnesia 13:1.

19 Tatian, To the Greeks, 42:16.

20 Origen, On the Beginning 1, 76, 4, 6.

21 Cyril Hierarch. Chapter 4

22 Gregory B. Sermon on the Baptism

23 Cyril Hierarch. Chapter 4

24 Basil V. Homily on Psalm 44.

25 Zlat. on Gal., Gregory of Nys. Archpriest Eun. XII.

26 Theodoret, Church History 2, 7.

27 Lactantius, De murt. persec. II.

28 Vincent Lear. Reminder (Commonit.) 1, 22

29 Magne Patrol, s gr. t 56, col, 422.

30 Irenaeus, Against Heresies I, 11.

31 Vincent, Reminder 1, 18.

32 Eusebius, on Ps. 66, 12.

33 Augustine, On the City of God XVIII, 51.

34 Theodoret, On I. On Question 16.

35 Sozomen, Church History V. 16.

36 Isidore of Pelusium, Letter 11.

Source in Russian: Skaballanovich M. The Preservation of Dogma in the Church // Transactions of the Kyiv Theological Academy. 1910. No. 9. pp. 17-78.