--- In [email protected], "Lina Dahlan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Saya mau tanya sama Mbah aja deh. Dogma itu apa sih ya dalam
> terminologi Kristen? Mungkin Dogma dalam Kristen ini sama saja
> dengan 'fatwa' dalam Islam kali ya? Soalnya, sepengertian saya
Dogma
> dalam Islam itu tak bisa dirubah oleh Institusi manusia manapun
> (kami dengar dan kami taat).
------------------------
DH:
Dogma yang berasal dari kata kerja 'doko' ("I think"), berasal dari
masa pra-Kristiani. Ini menggambarkan keputusan yang mengikat, atau
clause dengan muatan ethico-philosophical atau socio-political
karakter.
Validitasnya tergantung dari kewibawaan authoritas yang
mengucapkannya (mirip fatwa).
Dibawah ini ada refernsi yang dapat dipakai:
"With the introduction of the term into the vocabulary and life of
the Christian Church, its meaning became richer, as we shall see, and
this gradually developed significant differentiations'(1). These
differentiations were sometimes so greatly influenced by others that
the formation of a totally new term became justified, which in turn
expressed something almost entirely different.
At least four clearly distinct shades of meaning and uses of the word
dogma can be highlighted in Christianity. These were not of course
parallel to each other, but for historical or psychological reasons
they arose and developed over time. Today they are an unquestionable
reality which can cause the unwary considerable confusion.
1. The first and most fundamental meaning of dogma is of course
mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, in the description of the
Apostolic Synod which was called to decree "the decisions (dogmata)
that had been reached by the Apostles and elders who were in
Jerusalem" (Acts 16:4). The vital designation "reached" is highly
indicative of the essence of dogma, as the point of crystallisation
where two things meet: on the one hand the will of God who is
revealed and, on the other hand, even if its importance is secondary,
the conscience of the person being saved in the context of "obedience
to the faith" (Rom. 1:5). We shall see below that this "Divine-
human" feature of the essence of dogma is a conditio sine qua non for
the Orthodox understanding of salvation which is expressed at length
in the teaching of the Church concerning synergy.
Dogma signifies, then, a generally accepted teaching "decreed" by the
leaders of the Christian community, under the guidance of the Holy
Spirit who, according to the Lord's promise, abides forever in the
Church, leading her "unto all truth" (John 16: 13). This is evident
in the constant conviction and direct reference made to the Divine
factor by the presiding leaders, through the well known phrase "it
seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us". When posed in the plural,
dogma means the individual and axiomatic truths of the Christian
faith, the so-called "articles of faith" which, when connected as a
single organic whole, comprise the complete conscience of the Church.
Yet, in saying the "conscience of the Church", we must always keep in
mind that this is the "memory of the Chuch"(2)-which is not a product
of time, unlike "ecclesiastical conscience" which is nothing other
than the reflection of the teaching of the Church in the conscience
of the individual faithful person (3). The memory of the Church is a
stable and constant spiritual dynamic which is unceasingly maintained
by the divine Logos who "inseparably" and "without divislon" became
human, and the Comforter who remains eternally within her.
It is clear that the memory and conscience of the Church includes and
maintains everything that God was pleased to reveal to humankind for
its salvation. Whatever bears no relation to eternal life and
salvation cannot be accurately described as an article of faith. The
truths revealed by God to humanity are generally referred to in three
categories: (a) concerning the uncreated God (theology); (b)
concerning the created world (cosmology); (c) concerning the
relationship of the created and the uncreated (soteriology).
The sum total of these salvific truths is described in the New
Testament as the faith which is "entrusted" (1 Tim. 6:20), thereby
clearly showing that what is involved is not just chance,
conventional or temporary knowledge, but rather a unique, firm and
invincible treasure. This is maintained by God in the Church as a
deposit out of extreme love for humankind, for the salvation of all
who believe. The fact that this invaluable and irreplaceable treasure
cannot be defined and described in the form of a
complete "codification" is quite obvious, especially since the
Apostle Paul himself states that in this life "we know in part and
prophesy in part" (1 Cor. 13:9).
The divinely inspired summary of this treasure is found in the Nicene
Creed, so that the faithful may discern between "old wives' tales" (l
Tim.4:7), "philosophy and empty deceit" (Col. 2:8) and even between
truths which are useful in this world, but which are of no
significance in terms of our salvation. The articles contained in the
Creed present the major dogmas of the Church which, when studied
properly by the theologising Church in their organic relationship and
correct cohesion, can be further divided into axiomatic and
individual truths. They are fixed articles of faith,whether they are
presuppositions or consequences of the central dogmas (4).
>From what has already been said, a distinct differentiation between
the notion of dogma becomes apparent. On the one hand, we have the
self-evident truths which are seminal and given directly through
Divine revelation, while on the other hand there are the inferred or
derivative axiomatic positions. In spite of this, when we speak about
the dogmas of the Church, we maintain the same indiscriminate
perception of them, knowing that our orthodoxy and orthopraxy depend
upon them, and that, together, they guarantee our spiritual
salvation. For this reason, the Church which tends the flock teaches
the general dogmas on a daily basis and edifies the people of God,
not only with formal words of instruction and related sermons, but
also through all homologous pastoral acts, which as a matter of
course, infinitely surpass any oratorical capabilities.
That which may at first glance appear to be merely an abstract and
theoretical truth under the term "dogma" is similarly embodied in a
certain time and place among the people of God as a "shape"
and "form" of expression in all aspects of life, whether as a "way of
thinking", "logos and praxis", "custom and character" or as a "way of
life" in general. It is clear then that, with such a spectrum of
expressions in the Church, dogma is declared and confessed even
through silence or through perseverance in martyrdom, whereupon it
becomes the most eloquent witness to the faith. If dogma were not
embodied each time, in the manner that the invisible God became
incarnate, the treasure of faith would then appear to be a
monophysitic phenomenon, a venerable relic in the archives of the
Church, an empty shell, a sterile form and dead letter, rather than a
useful and transforming breath of life. Yet such a stripping down
would no doubt be a cheapening of that which one devoutly theologises
and believes with St Paul, namely that the word of God remains
forever "living and powerful, and sharper than a two edged sword"
(Heb. 4. 12).
2. There is another more specialised meaning of the term "dogma"
which refers not to all the truths of the faith which are constantly
preached and testified to with all available means in the Church, but
only to the most central truths which were triumphantly and
officially formulated by the Synods of the Church in well-
known "definitions', precisely because these were misunderstood or
misconstrued by "other teachings". These dogmatic statements of the
Church have, typically at least, greater authority as the direct and
undisputed voice of the Synod which officially expresses the
conscience of the Church. However, as the triumphant character of the
formulations may impress us, we may at times unfortunately overlook -
or not understand at all- another most important fact. Namely, that
the formulations of the teachings of the Church made by the Synods
may in some sense be "inferior" to the unofficial and daily teaching
which, as has already been mentioned, is declared "in many and varied
ways". For while the formulation of the Synod defines the "limits" -
beyond which there is the implacable "anathema"- it is by its very
nature polemical, antithetical and exclusive in terms of opposing
views or explicit doubts. Conversely, daily pastoral teaching which
is conducted unofficially and with "simplicity of heart" (Acts 2:46),
so to speak, has apparently a more comprehensive and inclusive
character. It is more philanthropic as it is directed towards all
with loving care and attention, without excluding anybody, at least
in the initial stages.
While the Synodical decrees contain selectively only that portion of
the truth which must be promoted and imposed - by way of phrases
which more or less have a logical coherence - in order to prevent
deviation and encourage correction, everyday pastoral instruction is
not confined or predetermined by such guidelines. Therefore, it is
not pressured in terms of language or time, which enables it to come
back to the same topic from a new angle and with more suitable
terminology, thereby approaching more mystically, we could say, the
truth of faith which is received in mystery and which is ineffable in
essence (5). Unless this most significant, but often hidden,
parameter of the reception of the Divine word of revelation is
properly appreciated, there is always the very serious danger that
theology might become an undertaking of rational thought alone, a
philosophical rather than a nyptic quest (6). On the other hand, if
we keep this important "difference" in mind, we will then be in a
better position to successfully overcome temptations of "the tree of
knowledge of good and evil" (Gen.2:17), so that in this also the
words of the greatest of theologians, the Apostle Paul. may be
maintained in full honour and validity: "we have this treasure in
earthen vessels, that the excellence of the power may be of God and
not of us" (2 Cor. 4:7).
The Orthodox theologian must remember the first and primary function
which the "Decrees" of the Ecumenical Synods or Councils must have
and retain for all time. This is so that their protective character
does not become misunderstood and degenerate into an irreverent
absolutism of that which is relative, in which case it would be the
worst form of idolatry. The "Decrees" signify a -setting of
boundaries" or an intellectual "enclosure", so that the mind may not
go beyond certain boundaries, but rather be guided on the true path
where living waters are found. This directive arrow only possesses an
inalienable sacredness and binding character for the faithful -
whether individually or as a whole - if it does not become a
restraint or an obstacle for a deeper insight into the sacred words
of revelation which, day and night, constitute the first concern of
the faithful, a search for divine mercy through a turning towards
God, as is expressed most characteristically in the funeral
service: "I am yours, save me, for I have searched out your righteous
ways".
One could of course object that, in comparing the Synodical "Decrees"
with the unofficial pastoral teaching, the former are the result of
Synodical deliberations and decisions, and therefore have a
collective character which guarantees the presence and guidance of
the Paraclete (cf. Mat. 18:20). The latter, however, exercised
normally by only one person - regardless of whether that person is a
Bishop- does not offer the same guarantee of an infallible operation
and correct teaching which is guided from above.
This objection at first sight appears indeed to be fair and strong.
Yet, if we consider it more soberly and maturely, we shall see that
here too great caution is required so that we do not make absolute
what are essentiall relative positions, which at any rate are only
valid under certain conditions. It must not be forgotten that, if it
is true that one person - even a Bishop- can easily go astray while
teaching the truths of the faith, it is not impossible or improbable
for an entire Synod to be similarly led astray in the same task,
since it did not wish to leave itself unreservedly to the
enlightenmentof the Holy Spirit, unaffected by ulterior motives and
human weaknesses which historically led even to the so-
called "Robbers Synods". Furthermore, it is impossible to say in
advance what the quality and outcome of a certain Synod will be,
since this is always evaluated with hindsight and with the same
criterion used for evaluating the teaching of each pastor (7).
Therefore, in teachng the truths of the faith, the individual person
is able to have the same assistance from above to believe correctly,
if he or she in good conscience struggles to remain in undisturbed
communion and spiritual accord with the body of the Church, and
especially with the phronema of the Church Fathers (consensus
patrum). In the final analysis, we must admit that, in this instance
also, the motivating force is not the human factor, regardless of the
number of people, but rather the assistance which comes from the
Paraclete, which is in accordance with the purity and darity of one's
phronema. That is why it is said and believed in the Church that "the
Spirit blows where it chooses" (John 3:8).
Just as the "Law" in the entire Divine Economy was "our tutor to
bring us unto Christ" (Gal.3:24), and is never destroyed, not even by
the Lord Himself who stated that "I have not come to destroy but to
fulfil" (Mat.5: 1 7), so it is that the "Decrees" of the Ecumenical
Councils always remain in absolute honour and validity. This does not
mean that they exhaust the truth, just us Law does not exhaust Grace,
nor is it absolutely identified with it (8).
Unless we accept this relationship between regular and constant
teaching on the one hand, and the irregular formation of dogma in the
Church on the other, we shall certainly do an injustice and seriously
distort both these expressions of the gifts and illumination of the
Paraclete. The fundamental notion of communion in the Holy Spirit,
which we nonetheless never cease to request in the Divine Liturgy,
would also be corrupted. It is a liturgical exhortation which
recapitulates every other petition: "Having asked for the unity of
the faith and the communion of the Holy Spirit, let us commend
ourselves and one another and our whole life to Christ our God"
(Litany of the Divine Liturgy).
In order to make the deep and organic relationship between these two
ways of teaching and maintaining dogma in the Church even more lucid,
we shall take a simple example from everyday life. Just as
streetlights which are put in place by councils in order that the
streets may be lit up and safe to walk in during the dark (streets
which the councils themselves had already made for the benefit of
local residents) cannot overshadow or degrade the value of those
streets which were made before the streetlights, so it is that the
dogmatic truths formulated in Synodical Decrees cannot and should not
in any way overshadow the truths of the word of God which are sown in
the daily teaching of the Church for the sanctification and salvation
of the world.
3. We now come to the third meaning of the term dogma. Through
regular and continuous study, teaching and experience of the word of
God, it is obvious that, according to the gifts of the Holy Spirit
and the needs of each moment in time, newer details or aspects of the
unchanging and revealed Divine will are constantly placed before the
faithful. They allow it to be recognisable, applicable and effective
in every historical period of the Divine Economy.
For example, the Trinitarian dogma is first of all what the Church
teaches about the Trinitarian God in Scripture, the Creed and the
related Synodical Decrees. Yet this dogma is characterised by the
entire corpus of theological works which, strictly speaking, is not
completed or closed by the mentioned, and absolutely binding factors.
On the contrary, it is nourished and continuously enriched by them,
such that the study of the Trinitarian dogma will not finish until
the end of time, as more dissertations are added to the existing
bibliography. In the broader context of the perpetual theological
task of the Church, there are included also the so-
called "theologoumena", namely theological opinions. These present
nothing which is at first glance reprehensible, yet they do not have
the maturity or attestation that would allow them to be considered,
without any risk or hesitation, as being the official position of the
Church on any particular issue.
This dynamic feature of the "knowledge of God" for the theologian was
alluded to by the Lord when he requested from the Father "eternal
life" for His disciples, not as a momentary conquest that occurs
once, but as a continuously increasing process of initiation and
sanctification: "This is eternal life. that they may know you, the
only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent" (John 17:3). The
Greek form of the verb know in this passage does not indicate an
automatic and momentary knowledge, but rather something that is
continuous and progressive until we all reach "the knowledge of Your
unapproachable glory" (Prayer of the Compline service).
In summarising the three meanings of the term dogma mentioned so far,
the four following points may be stated. Firstly, dogmas are all the
truths which are taught by the Church in "various times and in
different ways" (Heb. 1:1) and which are necessary for the salvation
of all people. These may include truths which were not officially
declared as dogma in Synods, either because of their great number or
because there was not sufficient reason to do this. Secondly, dogmas
are the truths of the faith which are extraordinarily formed, being
dependent upon relevant "Decrees" of Ecumenical Councils and which
are safeguarded continuously. Having clashed in any way whatsoever
with fallen human logic, they met with objections and animosity
either inside or outside the Church, and their formulation had to
therefore oppose or reprove contrary beliefs in order to safeguard
the integrity of the faith and the salvation of souls. Thirdly,
dogmas are the areas of specialisation within the theological task of
the Church which. as special sections of Orthodox Dogmatics, present
the theological issues of each of them. A fourth and entirely
different meaning and use of the term dogma is used in modern Greek,
particularly in the framework of the ecumenical movement, as a
substitute for the word "denomination".
The sacred authority and theanthropic validity of dogma
In an attempt to promote properly and constructively the sacredness
and the inviolate character of dogma in the midst of the general
instability and questioning of the world's values. we often speak of
the authenticity and validity of dogma, unthinkingly using these two
terms in the same sense, almost as if they were synonyms. Careful
study shows that this is a grave error which testifies to an
unacceptable confusion of meanings that leads in turn to a gross
inaccuracy of expression. This verbal recklessness unfortunately goes
beyond formal terminology. Greater damage is caused by the fact that
such inaccuracy seriously obstructs the correct understanding of the
deeper essence of dogma which -as has been already stated and as
shall be shown below in more detail- lies in its theanthropic
character.
To avoid fatal confusion, then, we must distinguish between the
meanings of "authority" and "validity" by carefully examining the
precise content of each. When speaking of "authority", we do not mean
of course the moral force and binding character of dogma, but rather
the "fatherhood" and "source" from where the truth which becomes
dogma emanates. This is more easily understood if we consider the
corresponding Latin termauctorirtas which refers more directly to the
notion of fatherhood. In these terms, it is clear why "authority" is
identified only with the Divine factor (9). On the one hand, because
the truth of faith was given from above "once and for all to the
saints" (Jude 1:3) and, on the other, because any subsequent
development of these truths in the conscience of the faithful,
expressed as a conscientious teaching and theology, continues to be
accompanied always by the extraordinary attributes of faith. These
prevent it from becoming assimilated, or even compared with, any form
of merely rational knowledge.
Having established from what has been said the main meaning of
the "authority" of dogma, as its transcendent starting point and
source, we can now recognise more easily and unhesitatingly that it
is natural to infer the moral and religious power and binding
character of dogma for the faithful, as a product and secondary
notion of"authority" which is very close to the notion of "validity".
If, however, this notion of "validity" stems from the transcendent
origin and source of dogma - to which its strength and sacredness can
be mainly attributed- then both the nature of the truths of faith as
well as the nature of the human person nonetheless compel us to
acknowledge the moral contribution of the human factor also in the
manifestation and consolidation of the validity of dogma. Being in
the salvific, theandric or Divine human form, the human factor does
not even remain neutral in the extraordinary process of irregular
revelation, nor in the subsequent task of sanctification and eternal
salvation towards which this aims.
In analysing the theandric nature understood in the light of the
nature of the truths of the faith, namely the "synergy" of the Divine
and human factors in the original manifestation as well as the
further formulation of dogma, we mean that the truths of Divine
revelation are salvific principles of life, not simply neutral
educational material. This is precisely because the human person is
called in freedom to acknowledge and confess that such principles
come from the God who speaks, and then to live responsibly according
to them so that he or she may receive salvation in Christ. This is
the main reason why the faithful must be ready at every moment to
sacrifice if necessary even their God-given and unique gift of life
for the sake of the truth of the faith (martyrs-new martyrs). This
would otherwise rightfully be considered as the greatest sin in the
world, equal to suicide for which the Church refuses to give a
funeral service, despite pressure to the contrary from social
movements of recent times, and despite the fact that such a ruling
does not apply even to the hardest criminal. (10)
That this synergy between the human and the divine is implied by the
nature of the human person is clearly obvious given the fact that
only in freedom and in the related degree of responsibility is the
human person realised and developed until the very last breath. For,
the nature of the person is by definition "ec-static" which,
according to the etymology of this term in Greek, means to "go out of
one's self'. (11)
>From the viewpoint of the Divine and human factors alone, it is
possible to evaluate correctly the importance of the following vital
ecclesiological realities at least. It is on the basis of these
realities that the human-Divine validity of dogma is based and,
through these, it is uninterruptedly maintained from generation to
generation, viz·. -(a) the Divine inspiration of Holy Scripture; (b)
the infallibility of the Church; (c) Apostolic succession; (d)
worship and popular piety in general; and (e) the blood of the
martyrs shed for the faith.
Not one of these great ecclesiological realities could possibly be
studied or correctly interpreted as a phenomenon which has an
inspiration and inclination purely from on high, monophysitically. It
has more to do with an essential synergy of the Divine and human
factors in the full scope and depth of these functions in the life of
the Church. It is therefore imperative that we develop these ideas
here. The first two truths (a) and (b) require no further
explanation, other than what Orthodoxy teaches today in its dogmatic
manuals in response to other denominations, especially from the
middle of this century. when with God's blessing, a Patristic renewal
commenced. Indeed, as a result, it is now possible for fundamental
dogmatic truths to be sensitively reformulated in theological
language which is more genuinely Orthodox. Previously the Orthodox
themselves had used a language which belonged rather to scholastic
theology or to irreverent rationalism, since most of their
theologians had more or less been unconsciously influenced by western
universities where postgraduate studies were undertaken.
At this point it should be said very briefly that those things which
relate to the Divine inspiration of Holy Scripture in general,
despite the honest efforts up until now to state the axiomatic
Orthodox positions and the proper hermeneutical criteria of most
Orthodox biblical scholars, have not yet been presented in such a
dynamic theological synthesis that they can be counted rightfully and
equally among the wonders of God's love which occur according to
Divine economy in each historical period. We only hint at these,
mainly in worship services, when we exclaim: "God is wonderous among
His saints" (Ps. 68:35). Yet in such an anticipated panoramic
synthesis, it is certain that the entire Orthodox theory on Divine
inspiration shall not merely avoid the extremities of some heretical
positions such as verbal or word for word inspiration on the one hand
and the complete divesting of Holy Scripture's transcendent character
on the other. It will also use ample proof to make clear that
irregular Divine inspiration belongs organically to the Church, not
only because it alone could define and recognise the canon of the
authentic biblical texts, but more importantly because biblical
revelation in itself was recorded by the Church and in the Church.
Therefore only in the Church, and in the "communion of the Holy
Spirit" unceasingly guaranteed therein, is it possible for Scripture
to be interpreted properly, that is to say authentically, as the word
of God.
Similarly, one could say that the infallibility of the Church has
been sufficiently articulated, at least as far as the major aspects
of the related theological issues are concerned. There have been,
however, - and there probably still are - individual Orthodox
theologians who, while otherwise well meaning, have the strange
belief that the term "infallibility" reeks of western influence and
expresses a so-called institutionalised legalism(12). However, it
must be emphasised very strongly that much has yet to be said and
published, mainly with regard to the remaining ecclesiological
realities, points (c), (d) and (e), and their deeper contribution to
the theanthropic validity of dogma which is continuously being
verified anew.
Of course, this is not the appropriate place to present in broader
terms the ecclesiological principles which have been mentioned in
other more popularised articles (13). Nonetheless, several things
about them must be presented in general terms in order to show their
great importance in establishing the validity of dogma which is the
issue at hand.
First of all, it is necessary to develop further the implications of
Apostolic succession which one could justifiably call
the "chromosomes" or the guarantee of the identity and continuity of
the true Church in time and space. This is even more necessary today
when, due mainly to the worldwide association of Christians through
the ecumenical movement, there is the direct danger that the
theological senses will become so carelessly blunted that they will
be unable to diagnose or recognise the authentic features implied in
such a central and neuralgic ecclesiological term (14). In
particular, one could consider the Bishop, the distinct and
historical figure within the entire body of the Church, through whom
all the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the other parts are, by the grace
of God, communicated, activated and perpetuated, thereby manifesting
the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in the world. No
misinterpretation or quick judgement is permitted concerning this God-
given institution which responsibly and with full measure (plenitudo
potestatis) embodies the authentic successor of the Apostles in the
midst of the people of God, but which is sometimes unfortunately
attacked by naive or malicious accusers as being a supposedly impious
remnant of outdated despotism or medieval absolutism(15).
The countless patristic testimonies to the purely Christocentric - or
perhaps it would be more theologically accurate to say Christological-
nature of the episcopal function in the Church, which describe the
Bishop as being in the "place and form of Christ", the one who
presides over the Lord's Supper and, by extension, over all of the
eucharistic community of the faithful rather than just in strictly
liturgical settings and worship, are a great scandal for the rational
mind. For indeed, only the "foolishness of the cross" (1Cor.l:18)
could possibly overlook the claims derived from so-called natural law
concerning the absolute equality of all people. According to this, it
would be impossible to acknowledge that one person has the right to
be considered the regulatory factor for the authenticity and
prosperity of institutions and functions of free persons gathered
into the communion of the faithful, even if this is done in the name
of the "mystical body" of Christ.
To refute these arguments, we must briefly remind ourselves of basic
aspects of the teaching of the Church concerning the role of the
Bishop. First and foremost, we need to underline certain astounding
truths which can be easily derived from the liturgical practice
surrounding the ordination of the Bishop. Thus the general conviction
and teaching that the Bishops in the Church are "by the grace of God"
successors of the twelve Apostles themselves who placed them in
various regions as the unmistakeable and visible head of the local
Church, is eloquently commented upon and interpreted by the
ordination service. This, moreover, is clearly distinct from the
liturgical content of the corresponding services for the other two
ranks of priesthood (Presbyter and Deacon). In the case of the
ordination of a Presbyter or Deacon, no public statement and
confession of faith is required apart from that which is given by all
members of the Church during their baptism. The candidate is
guaranteed to the Church by his Bishop following his own wish and
request. On the other hand, although the candidate for the episcopal
office in the initial stage does not have the right to submit a
petition, since the Church alone - and only through the Holy Synod -
can take such an initiative and make this decision, the entire
responsibility is then transferred publicly to the elected candidate,
who must make an official and lengthy confession of faith during the
sacred moment of his ordination.
It is especially significant that, after the newly ordained Bishop
recites the Creed, he is invited to "confess" and declare the
faith "more broadly" in the midst of the Church, as if unreservedly
accepting with an oath everything and everyone that the Church has
ever accepted through its Ecumenical Councils, while rejecting and
anathematising, with the same decisiveness, that which the Councils
have condemned for all time. Taking into account the concluding
verification that one who is ordained a Bishop shall keep all these
things "until his last breath", it is obvious that he submits and
even identifies his own conscience for a lifetime with the voice and
conscience of the Church, infallibly spoken through the Ecumenical
Councils. The Bishop is officially "offered" as the person who
empties himself more than anybody else in faithful obedience to the
Church militant, in accordance with the example of the incarnate and
only begotten Son of God who, in obedience to the will of the Father,
became "obedient unto death" (Phil. 2:8).
The purely Christological character of the office of the Bishop is
inferred from this mystic parallel, if not from the identity
according to Grace. By analogy and by virtue of the mystical parallel
that exists, all that Christ rightfully proclaimed about Himself by
saying "he who has seen me has also seen the Father" (John 14:9),
also applies to the Bishop. Thus "by the grace of God", the Son who
has absolutely become a servant of the Church, somehow automatically
becomes the Father of all the faithful. Only through such obedience
and kenosis can one understand and accept thereafter the supreme
responsibility and authority recognised in him by the Church.
Unfortunately, the legal vocabulary of canon law has not managed to
express this in a more suitable or effective term than the scholastic
plenitudo potestatis borrowed from the west. The entire spiritual
force of the episcopal office is found in the evangelical law
that "my power is made perfect in weakness" (2Cor. 12:9) and "when I
am weak, then I am strong" (2Cor.12:10). It could not have been
otherwise, since the role of the Bishop is mainly described in the
New Testament as a "ministry of conciliation".
If through the Divine inspiration of Scripture, the infallibilty of
the Church and Apostolic succession there has been a sufficiently
broad recognition on the part of the faithful of their importance in
directly and substantially contributing to the Divine-human validity
of dogma, we are not able to say the same about worship, popular
piety and martyrdom. On the contrary, the dominant impression is that
the validity of dogma - which it has of itself - is in fact the chief
cause and creative force in the development of worship and all facets
of personal or collective piety, as well as of Christian martyrdom.
Yet, without for a moment questioning the power and formative
influence of dogma on all activities of the people of God, we must
also emphasize the reverse effect. For one cannot overlook the
witnessing which each generation of the faithful has given throughout
the centuries to the truth and sacredness of the very dogma which
they live out. Is this not the value of witnessing which is declared
by God when He emphatically calls all people to this? Is this not the
meaning of the exhortation: "be my witnesses and I too am a witness,
says the Lord God"(Isaiah 43:10).
Matters relating to worship, and by extension all that relates to
popular piety, are not determined by personal desires or according to
prevailing secular fashions, but rather by strictly traditional
guidelines so that all things sing together - as equal expressions of
the one faith - in the confession and praise of the Trinitarian God.
Given this fact, it is even clearer that worship, and the power of
various traditions and customs, are a further affirmation of the
Divine-human validity of dogma.
If all of this is true for the harmless and, so to speak, regular and
collective witness of the host of faithful who are ecclesiastically
gathered together, one can appreciate how much greater the moral
force and witness the blood of the Martyrs and Confessors of the
faith must be. Undeniable proof of this of course is the fact that,
very early, the blood of martyrdom was considered by the Church as
being an equally valid path of salvation as the sacrament of Baptism.
The purifying and salvific power of martyrdom as a "font of rebirth"
was apparently pointed out by God who said through the prophet: "let
them bring their witnesses to justify them. and let them say " It is
true'" ( Isaiah 43:9). Of course it is not without special
significance that this statement highlights something more wonderous,
namely that the blood of Martyrs is sufficient to justify" not only
themselves, but also all the faithful who are with and among them.
However, we must immediately add that such a "justification" of the
Old Testament should not be confused with the ultimate justification,
sanctification and salvation which are through Christ, and His blood
alone.
In summarizing all that has been examined with regard to that which
is officially consecrated, but also with less apparent mystical
sources which perpetually "irrigate" Church dogma, so that the faith
will always be alive and victorious over the world, it must be stated
in conclusion that, only through a correct evaluation of all
sacramental parameters made with the fear of God, is the Church of
God indeed proven to be the "communion of the created with the
Uncreated by grace. without confusion or division. for the salvation
of the created and the glory of the Uncreated"
-----------------
Salam
danardono
***************************************************************************
Berdikusi dg Santun & Elegan, dg Semangat Persahabatan. Menuju Indonesia yg
Lebih Baik, in Commonality & Shared Destiny. www.ppi-india.org
***************************************************************************
__________________________________________________________________________
Mohon Perhatian:
1. Harap tdk. memposting/reply yg menyinggung SARA (kecuali sbg otokritik)
2. Pesan yg akan direply harap dihapus, kecuali yg akan dikomentari.
3. Lihat arsip sebelumnya, www.ppi-india.da.ru;
4. Satu email perhari: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
5. No-email/web only: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
6. kembali menerima email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ppiindia/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
