Thoughts on Judgement and the End

"And then Christ will say to us, 'you too come forth. Come forth, you drunkards, come forth, you weak ones, come forth you children of shame!' ...  And He will say to us, 'you are swine, made in the image of the beast and with his mark;  but come yet also.'  And the wise ones and those of understanding will say, 'Lord, why dost Thou receive these men?'  And He will say, 'This is why I reeive these O ye wise; this is why I receive them, O ye of understanding, that not one of them believed them to be worthy of this.'  And He will hold out His hands to us and we shall fall down before Him... and we shall understand all things... Lord, Thy Kingdom come!"
Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky
Far be it that we should ever think such an iniquity that God could become unmerciful! For the property of Divinity does not change as do mortals. God does not acquire something which He does not have, nor lose what He has, nor supplement what He does have, as do created beings. But what God has from the beginning, He will have and has until the [unending] end, as the blest Cyril wrote in his commentary on Genesis. Fear God, he says, out of love for Him, and not for the austere name that He has been given. Love Him as you ought to love Him; not for what He will give you in the future, but for what we have received, and for this world alone which He has created for us. Who is the man that can repay Him? Where is His repayment to be found in our works? Who persuaded Him in the beginning to bring us into being Who intercedes for us before Him, when we shall possess no [faculty of] memory, as though we never existed? Who will awake this our body for that life? Again, whence descends the notion of knowledge into dust? O the wondrous mercy of God! O the astonishment at the bounty of our God and Creator! O might for which all is possible! O the immeasurable goodness that brings our nature again, sinners though we be, to His regeneration and rest! Who is sufficient to glorify Him? He raises up the transgressor and blasphemer, he renews dust unendowed with reason, making it rational and comprehending and the scattered and insensible dust and the scattered senses He makes a rational nature worthy of thought. The sinner is unable to comprehend the grace of His resurrection. Where is gehenna, that can afflict us? Where is perdition, that terrifies us in many ways and quenches the joy of His love? And what is gehenna as compared with the grace of His resurrection, when He will raise us from Hades and cause our corruptible nature to be clad in incorruption, and raise up in glory him that has fallen into Hades?
Saint Isaac the Syrian

Memory Eternal

Like a blossom that wastes away, and like a dream that passes and is gone, so is every mortal into dust resolved; but again, when the trumpet sounds its call, as though at a quaking of the earth, all the dead shall arise and go forth to meet You, O Christ our God: on that day, O Lord, for him whom You have withdrawn from among us appoint a place in the tentings of Your Saints;yea, for the spirit of Your servant, O Christ.
Pater, may your memory be eternal.  The light in your face and the joy in which you celebrated the Divine Mysteries reminded us all that God is indeed with us.

St. Irenaeos: Concerning his Father in the Faith St. Polycarp

For I have a more vivid recollection of what occurred at that time than of recent events (inasmuch as the experiences of childhood, keeping pace with the growth of the soul, become incorporated with it); so that I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse— his going out, too, and his coming in—his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures. These things, through, God’s mercy which was upon me, I then listened to attentively, and treasured them up not on paper, but in my heart; and I am continually, by God’s grace, revolving these things accurately in my mind.
A fragment of a text written by St. Irenaeus concerning his teacher and elder St. Polycarp whose feast we keep and martyrdom we remember on this day.

The Martyrdom of Polycarp and the Eucharistic Ethos of the Early Church

But when at length he brought his prayer to an end, after remembering all who at any time had come in his way, small and great, high and low, and all the universal Church throughout the world, the hour of departure being come, they seated him on a donkey and brought him into the city, it being a high Sabbath.[1]

But when the pile was made ready, divesting himself of all his upper garments[2] and loosing his belt, he endeavored also to take off his shoes, though not in the habit of doing this before, because all the faithful at all times vied eagerly who should soonest touch his flesh. For he had been treated with all honor for his holy life even before his gray hairs came.

Immediately then the instruments that were prepared for the pile were placed about him. As they were going likewise to nail him to the stake, he said: "Leave me as I am; for He that has granted me to endure the fire will grant me also to remain at the pyre unmoved, even without the security which you seek from the nails."

So they did not nail him, but tied him. Then he, placing his hands behind him and being bound to the stake, like a noble ram out of a great flock for an offering, a burnt sacrifice made ready and acceptable to God, looking up to heaven said: "O Lord God Almighty, the Father of Your beloved and blessed Son Jesus Christ, through whom we have received the knowledge of You, the God of angels and powers and of all creation and of the whole race of the righteous, who live in Your presence;

I bless You because You have granted me this day and hour, that I might receive a portion amongst the number of martyrs in the cup[3] of Your Christ unto resurrection of eternal life, both of soul and of body, in the incorruptibility of the Holy Spirit. May I be received among these in Your presence this day, as a rich and acceptable sacrifice, as You did prepare and reveal it beforehand, and have accomplished it, You that art the faithful and true God.

For this cause, yea and for all things, I praise You, I bless You, I glorify You,[4] through the eternal and heavenly High-priest, Jesus Christ, Your beloved Son, through Whom, with Him and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and ever and for the ages to come. Amen."

When he had offered up the Amen and finished his prayer, the firemen lighted the fire. And, a mighty flame flashing forth, we to whom it was given to see, saw a marvel, yea and we were preserved that we might relate to the rest what happened.

The fire, making the appearance of a vault, like the sail of a vessel filled by the wind, made a wall round about the body of the martyr; and it was there in the midst, not like flesh burning, but like a loaf in the oven or like gold and silver refined in a furnace.[5] For we perceived such a fragrant smell, as if it were the wafted odor of frankincense or some other precious spice.

[1] Early in the Account we are led to connect this event to the Sabbath, the day in which our Lord Rested in the Tomb and destroyed the power of death.

[2] “divesting” of clothes is an image which would connect the hearer of this account to their Holy Saturday (High Sabbath) Baptism.

[3] This prayer of Polycarp has many parallels with the liturgical prayers of the Anaphora, making direct reference to the cup of Christ (which is unto resurrection and eternal life), sacrifice, and the High-Priesthood of Christ who has always been understood as the True celebrant of the Mysteries of whom the Bishop and later the Presbyter are types and Icons.

[4] “Σὲ ὑμνοῦμεν, σὲ εὐλογοῦμεν, σοὶ εὐχαριστοῦμεν, Κύριε, καὶ δεόμεθά σου, ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν.” Hymn chanted at the time of the consecration.

[5] Polycarp has become a Eucharist!

---



Yesterday was the feast of one of the Great Old Men of the Desert, Abba Bessarion.  Read the quote several times and spend the day thinking about it and it will become a cool breeze on a hot desert day, may the humble Bessarion's prayers deliver us from our self-righteousness!

A brother who had sinned was turned out of the church by the priest; Abba Bessarion got up and went with him, saying, "I, too, am a sinner."

Saint Irenaeos: The Proof of the Apostolic Preaching

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/irenaeus_02_proof.htm
As you read Irenaeos' text you might want to briefly glance over the short article I have written.  I apologize for including it but I thought it might contain an idea or two worth reflecting on when you read the above text.

The Birth of the Church

            Church historians are almost unanimous that there were Christian communities before there was any sort of authoritative set of scriptures specific to Christianity.[1]  In fact it would seem that specific texts originally achieved a certain level of authority within relatively isolated communities.  Therefore there was a diversity of Christian communities that had differing “scriptures” and it would seem that these scriptures were in fact the product of different communities.  Some communities might have only the Johannine texts with a few letters of Paul.  Another community might only be familiar with Matthew’s Gospel account.  Not until the time of Iranaeus, among the orthodox communities, was there much unanimity concerning which scriptures were authoritative.  This of course begs several questions.  Before this general agreement what was common to these early communities and what set them apart from the many communities claiming apostolic authority but were considered as early as Paul to be perversions of the Gospel? Did the communities form around specific scriptures or were the scriptures products of communities?  If the latter, if not a text, what was the cohesive force of these early communities?

            The answer to the first question is worship, namely, the worship of God who is uniquely revealed by His only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ and the descent of His Holy Spirit. This worship was experienced as a meal which was at once a heed to the command of the Son to, “do this in remembrance of me,” a sharing in the His triumph over death, and a simultaneous and paradoxical awaiting and being gathered into His Kingdom.  If this is what was held in common by the many communities it was also this which set it apart from many other communities.  Those who rejected the Father as an evil demiurge would reject a ritual in which the Father reveals Himself through His Son.  Those who held matter to be inherently profane could not accept a ritual in which God is experienced through eating and drinking.  At the same time those who rejected that Christ was anything other than a prophet could not agree with a ritual in which participation in the Son leads to union with the Father.   

            The second question is much more difficult and does not have a simple answer.  More than likely the community arose from a simultaneous introduction to the narrative of who Christ was and the worship of Christ as God’s anointed.  This narrative of Christ’s economia was not originally scriptural but a narrative which a person was initiated into through baptism, the laying on of hands, and participation in the meal of the New Israel.  In fact the New Testament texts, some have argued, are not simply historical accounts but the written reflections on the Early Church’s experience of Christ in worship.  Metropolitan John Zizioulas expressed this in his class lectures on Christian dogmatics:

  Christological hymns in the New Testament, which Paul discovered in the first communities (i.e., Philippians 2). These comprise theological-dogmatic elements for his entire line of thought. The same applies with the literary content of John’s Gospel (John’s Gospel is considered by many as a Eucharist-liturgical text; if not entirely, then at least in its basic core. As for the Gospel’s prologue, it most probably comprises liturgical material that John found to be used in worship). Peter’s literary work also: (Peter’s Epistle A is quite possibly a baptismal Liturgy), etc.[2]

Supporting this view that it was worship which was primarily authoritative is the example of Christian worships use and interpretation of the Judaic scriptures.  A few examples of the early Church’s mystagogical interpretation of the Old Testament include the identification of the Passover lamb with Christ and the Eucharist, the Red Sea with baptism, and Isaiah’s vision with the Liturgy.  A final point of support is the argument that has been put forward recently by biblical scholars who claim that many of the oldest parts of the New Testament, particularly in Paul’s letters, are hymns and prayers of a liturgical nature.

 The Ante-Nicene Church

            The letters of Ignatius are of tremendous importance in that they provide a picture of the way that an early Christian community existed.  Most importantly Ignatius clearly see’s the hierarchy as essentially Eucharistic and deriving its authority from the Eucharist.  He writes to the Philadelphians that, “there is one flesh of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and one chalice that brings union with His blood. There is one altar, as there is one bishop with the priests and deacons.”[3]  He begins with the premise that the Eucharist is an image of God’s kingdom and that the bishop is in the place of God.  The entire hierarchical structure together with the unique roles of the priests, deacons, and laity derive from the Eucharist.[4]

            Both Ignatius and Iranaeus understood that participation in the Eucharist was participation in the life of Christ which led man to adoption as God’s children and a sharing in Christ’s triumph over death.[5]  Ignatius says that the Eucharist, “is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote which prevents us from dying, but a cleansing remedy driving away evil, that we should live in God through Jesus Christ.”[6]  The Eucharist was for Iraneaus the par excellence experience of orthodoxy.  It distinguished New Israel from the old.[7]  It also protected the Church from misunderstanding the identity of Christ and the truth of His incarnation.  -micah

---

[1] Post-modernity has challenged the priority of texts over experience—a syndrome still dominant in modern Christian scholarship; the priority of theology, the conventional sense, over ecclesiology, and the priority of faith over the communion experience of the Kingdom of God. The dogma, imposed on all scholarly theological output after the Enlightenment and the Reformation, that the basis of our Christian faith cannot be extracted except from a certain depositum fidei, most notably from the Bible (to which usually Tradition was added), can no longer be sustained. More careful attention is paid and more serious reference is being given to the eucharistic communion experience that has been responsible for and has produced this depositum fidei. Petros Vasileiades READING THE BIBLE FROM THE ORTHODOX CHURCH PERSPECTIVE (published in Ecumenical Review 51 (1999), pp. 25-30).

[2] Metropolitan John Zizioulas, Thessaloniki University’s School of Theology Class Notes 1984-1985. http://www.oodegr.com/english/dogmatiki1/A1.htm#ena  

[3] Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadelphians IV

[4] …your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Magnesians VI

[5] By His own blood he redeemed us, as also His apostle declares, “In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the remission of sins.”  And as we are His members, we are also nourished by means of the creation (and He Himself grants the creation to us, for He causes His sun to rise, and sends rain when He wills). He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?  Irenaeus of Lyons, Book V Chpt. II

[6] Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Ephesians XX

[7] And the class of oblations in general has not been set aside; for there were both oblations there [among the Jews], and there are oblations here [among the Christians]. Sacrifices there were among the people; sacrifices there are, too, in the Church: but the species alone has been changed, inasmuch as the offering is now made, not by slaves, but by freemen. For the Lord is [ever] one and the same; but the character of a servile oblation is peculiar [to itself], as is also that of freemen, in order that, by the very oblations, the indication of liberty may be set forth. Irenaeus of Lyons, Book IV Chpt.XVIII

Great Video from a Contemporary "Abba"!

The Great Abba

When the holy Abba Anthony lived in the desert he

was beset by akedia, and attacked by many sinful thoughts.

He said to God, 'Lord, I want to be saved but these thoughts

do not leave me alone; what shall I do in my affliction? How

can I be saved?' A short while afterwards, when he got up to

go out, Anthony saw a man like himself sitting at his work,

getting up from his work to pray, then sitting down and

plaiting a rope, then getting up again to pray. It was an

angel of the Lord sent to correct and reassure him. He heard

the angel saying to him, 'Do this and you will be saved.' At

these words, Anthony was filled with joy and courage. He

did this, and he was saved.

He also said, 'Our life and our death is with our

neighbor. If we gain our brother, we have gained God, but

if we scandalize our brother, we have sinned against Christ.'

-Saint Anthony the Great

 

Follow this link to a video that shows St. Anthony's Cave

http://orthodoxfathers.org/bbc-extreme-pilgrim-ascetic-christianity.htm

Εὐάγριος: Everyone’s favorite “questionable” Character

Μὴ προσεύχου τὰ σὰ θελήματα γενέσθαι· οὐδὲ γὰρ πάντως συμωνοῦσι τῷ θελήματι τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον καθὼς ἐδιδάχθης, προσεύχου λέγων· Γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου ἐν ἐμοί· καὶ ἐπὶ παντὶ δὲ πράγματι οὕτως αὐτὸν αἴτει ἵνα τὸ αὐτοῦ γένηται θέλημα. θέλει γὰρ τὸ ἀγαθὸν, καὶ συμφέρον τῇ ψυχῇ, σὺ δὲ οὐ πάντως τοῦτο ζητεῖς.

Τί ἄλλο ἀγαθὸν ἀλλ' ἢ Θεός; Οὐκοῦν αὐτῷ ἀποδῶμεν πάντα τὰ καθ' ἡμᾶς, καὶ εὖ ἡμῖν ἔσται· ὁ γὰρ ἀγαθὸς πάντως, καὶ ἀγαθῶν ἐστι παροχεὺς δωρεῶν.

Fr. Florovsky: Theological Thought of St. Irenaeus

St. Irenaeus delineates the legitimate areas of theology in his Adversus Haereses. The "basic idea" remains the same — by this he means that the original deposit remains always one and the same. Theology consists of "working out the things that have been said," of "building them into the foundation of faith." This is done by "expounding the activity and dispensation of God for the sake of mankind," by "showing clearly" God’s long-suffering, by "declaring why one and the same God made some things subject to time, others eternal," by "understanding why God, being invisible, appeared to the prophets, not in one form, but differently to different ones," by "showing why there were a number of covenants with mankind," by "teaching the character of each of the covenants," by "searching out why God shut up all in disobedience that he might have mercy on all," by "giving thanks that the Logos of God was made flesh, and suffered," by "declaring why the coming of the Son of God was at the last times," by "unfolding what is found in the prophets about the end and the things to come," by "not being silent that God has made the forsaken Gentiles fellow heirs and of the same body and partners with the saints," and by "stating how this mortal and fleshly body will put on immortality, and this corruptible incorruption" (I, 10). Clearly St. Irenaeus does not consider this enumeration to be exhaustive and comprehensive. Rather, it is no more than a sketch, a guide of some of the areas in which speculative theology can be utilized. He himself discusses far more areas of theological concern.

God, for St. Irenaeus, is the Creator, the "Father of all," the "Source of all goodness." He is "simple, uncompounded, without diversity of parts, completely identical and consistent, beyond the emotions and passions" of created existence (II, 13). God as Creator gives existence to everything; creation was an act of his freedom, a free act, for "he was not moved by anything" (I, 1). God in his "greatness" cannot be known to man, he cannot be "measured" (IV, 20). It is God’s love, which brings man within the grasp of knowledge of God but this knowledge is limited, it is not knowledge of God’s "greatness" or his "true being." Our knowledge of God comes from the revelation of the Logos of God (IV, 20; III, 24). God is without need. He did not create because he had need of man and creation. Neither does he need our love, obedience, and service. God gives, confers, and grants (IV, 14).
God is "absolute and eternal." Creation is "contingent" and, being contingent, having their beginning in time, created beings "fall short of their maker’s perfection" (IV, 38). Akin to the thought of Theophilus of Alexandria and other Apologists, St. Irenaeus thinks of man at creation as "immature" — "being newly created they are therefore childlike and immature, and not yet fully trained for an adult way of life. And just as a mother is able to offer food to an infant, but the infant is not yet able to receive food unsuited to its age, so also God could have offered perfection to man at the beginning, but man, being yet an infant, could not have absorbed it" (IV, 38).
Not only is man’s participation in the redemptive work of Christ a process but the very plan of redemption is a process and — moreover, the very Incarnation, the reality of God becoming man, begins a process in the life of the God-Man that sanctifies every aspect and stage in the life of man. This is his well-known teaching of "recapitulation," of άνακεφαλαίωσις: There is no notion in the thought of St. Irenaeus of any form of passive holiness or passive righteousness. Everything is process, everything is dynamic, and everything is moving toward the goal of rebirth in Christ, of rebirth into incorruptibility, of rebirth into eternality, of rebirth leading to a vision and knowledge of God, of rebirth leading to transfiguration. The theme of the later Greek and then Byzantine fathers of the vision of God and of deification is also the thought of St. Irenaeus. As St. Irenaeus asks, what is the deification of created beings if not their participation in the divine life? Men will "see God in order to live; men will become immortal by the vision and will progress on the path to God" — per visionem immortales facti et peregrinantes usque in Deum. St. Irenaeus writes that "it is impossible to live without life, and the foundation or existence — ΰπαρξις — of life comes from participating — μετοχή — in God. To participate in God is to know — γιγνοσκειν — him and to enjoy his goodness” (III, 20). In the thought of St. Irenaeus everything is accomplished by God and by the will of God and yet man participates by a spiritually free acceptance of everything accomplished and revealed by God.
Since God is the cause of the being of all things, these created things, in order to participate in "incorruptibility," must remain "subject to God." Subjection and obedience to God conveys incorruptibility and "continuance in incorruptibility is the glory of eternity." "Through such obedience and discipline and training, man, who is contingent and created, grows into the image and likeness of the eternal God. This process the Father approves and commands; the Son carries out the Father’s plan, the Spirit supports and hastens the process — while man gradually advances and mounts towards perfection; that is, he approaches the eternal. The eternal is perfect and this is God. Man has first to come into being, then to progress, and by progressing come to manhood, and having reached manhood to increase, and thus increasing to persevere, and by persevering be glorified, and thus see his Lord. For it is God’s intention that he should be seen: and the vision of God is the acquisition of immortality; and immortality brings man near to God" (IV, 38). It has been observed and commented upon that St. Irenaeus taught in The Demonstration of the Apostolic Teaching (15) that man before the Fall was immortal by nature. What appears to be contradictory is not necessarily the case if one analyzes the two different perspectives from which St. Irenaeus was writing in the respective texts. The interpretation involves that important "if" in St. Irenaeus — if man had kept the commandments of God if man had remained subject to incorruptibility. But in his thought, it is clear that this "if" is completely speculative and theoretical, not real and existential. The very nature of created existence and the depth of spiritual freedom in his thought render this "if" existentially meaningless.
God, invisible by nature, reveals himself, manifests himself to man by the Logos, the principle of all manifestation. And here there is simultaneity and reciprocity of knowledge and vision, for the Logos reveals God to man while simultaneously revealing man to God. And the Logos has become man so that men might become gods (V, preface).
Eternally the Son is the "Only-Begotten" of the Father. "His Begetting" is "in truth indescribable… Only the Father knows who begat him, and the Son who was Begotten" (II, 28). "The Son always co-exists with the Father" (II, 30). The "Son of God did not begin to be" (III, 18). "Through the Son who is in the Father and who has the Father in himself, He Who Is has been revealed" (III, 6). "The Son is the measure of the Father because he contains the Father" (IV, 4). "All saw the Father in the Son, for the Father is the invisible of the Son, the Son the visible of the Father" (IV, 6).
"There is one God, who by his Logos and Wisdom made and ordered all things… His Logos is our Lord Jesus Christ who in these last times became man among men so that he might unite the end with the beginning, that is, Man with God" (IV, 20). "God became man and it was the Lord himself who saved us" (III, 21). "He united man to God… If he had overcome man’s adversary as man, the enemy would not have been justly overcome. If it had not been God, who granted salvation, we should not have it as a secure possession. And if man had not been united to God, man could not have become a partaker of immortality. For the mediator between God and man had to bring both parties into friendship and harmony through his kinship with both, and to present man to God and to make God known to man. In what way could we share in the adoption of the sons of God unless through the Son we had received the fellowship with the Father, unless the Logos of God made flesh had entered into communion with us?" (III, 18). "The Lord redeemed us by his blood and gave his life for our life, his flesh for our flesh, and poured out the Spirit of the Father to unite us and reconcile God and man, bringing God down to man through the Spirit, and raising man to God through his Incarnation" (V, 1).
The Holy Spirit, the "unction," is referred to constantly by St. Irenaeus not only in credal forms but in terms of his activity — the "Spirit prepares man for the Son of God," the "Spirit supplies knowledge of the truth," the "Spirit has revealed the oikonomiai of the Father and the Son towards man," the Spirit is the "living water" which the Lord pours forth.

Fr. George Florovsky: Revelation and the Language of Dogma

The unalterable truths of experience can be expressed in different ways. Divine reality can be described in images and parables, in the language of devotional poetry and of religious art — the Church preaches this way even now in her liturgical hymns and in the symbolism of her sacramental acts. That is the language of proclamation, the language of prayer and of mystical experience, the language of kerygmatic theology. But there is another language, the language of comprehending thought, the language of dogma. Dogma is a witness of experience. The entire pathos of dogma lies in the fact that it points to Divine Reality, — in this, the witness of dogma is symbolic. Dogma is the testimony of thought about what has been seen and revealed, about what has been contemplated in the experience of faith — and this testimony is expressed in concepts and definitions. Dogma is an "intellectual vision," a truth of perception. One can say that it is the logical image, a "logical icon" of Divine Reality. And at the same time, a dogma is a definition — that is why its logical form is so important for dogma; that "inner word," which acquires force in its external expression. This is why the external aspect of dogma — its wording — is so essential.

Dogma is by no means a new Revelation. Dogma is only a witness. The whole meaning of dogmatic definition consists of testifying to unchanging truth, truth, which was revealed and has been preserved from the beginning. Thus, it is a total misunderstanding to speak of the "development of dogma." Dogmas do not develop; they are unchanging and inviolable, even in their external aspect — their wording. Least of all is it possible to change dogmatic language or terminology. As strange as it may appear, one can indeed say that dogmas arise, dogmas are established, but they do not develop. And once established, a dogma is perennial and already an immutable "rule of faith" — ό κανών της πίστεως. Dogma is an intuitive truth, not a discursive axiom, which is accessible to logical development. The whole meaning of dogma lies in the fact that it is expressed truth. Revelation discloses itself and is received in the silence of faith, in silent vision — this is the first and apophatic step of the knowledge of God. The entire fullness of truth is already contained in this apophatic vision, but truth must be expressed. Man, however, is called not only to be silent but also to speak, to communicate. The silentium mysticum does not exhaust the entire fullness of the religious vocation of man. There is also room for the expression of praise. In her dogmatic confession, the Church expresses herself and proclaims the apophatic truth, which she preserves. The quest for dogmatic definitions is therefore, above all, a quest for terms. Precisely because of this, the doctrinal controversies will be a dispute over terms. One will have to find accurate and clear words to describe and express the experience of the Church.

The Byzantine Fathers
of the Fifth Century

Saint Nicholas Kavasilas concerning Martyrdom and the Altar

(24.) Ὅτι δ᾿ ἡ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου δύναμις τὸ μύρον ἐστίν,ἐχρῆν τῇ δυνάμει ταύτῃ καὶ τὴν ὑποκειμένην ὕλην οἰκείωςἔχειν· δρᾶσαι γὰρ ἂν οὕτω βέλτιον, ὥσπερ καὶ πῦρ καὶ
φῶς διὰ τῶν ἐπιτηδείων, οἶμαι, σωμάτων· ἐπεὶ καὶ τοὔνομα
αὐτὸ τοῦ Σωτῆρος, ὃ πάντα ἐδύνατο καλούμενον, οὐκ ἐν (5)
τοῖς ἁπάντων στόμασι τὴν ἰσχὺν ὁμοίως ἐπεδείκνυ τὴν
αὑτοῦ. Καὶ τοίνυν ζητήσας ὅ τι ἂν τῶν σωμάτων
κατάλληλον ὁ τελεστὴς ὑποθείη τῷ μύρῳ, τῶν μαρτυρικῶνὀστέων ὃ προσήκει μᾶλλον εὗρεν οὐδέν, καὶ ταῦτα μυρίσας
καὶ ἀληλιμμένα τῇ τραπέζῃ προσθείς, τὸ θυσιαστήριον (10)ἀπαρτίζει.
(25.) Μαρτύρων γὰρ τοῖς τοῦ Χριστοῦ μυστηρίοις οὐδὲν
συγγενέστερον, οἷς πρὸς αὐτὸν τὸν Χριστὸν καὶ σῶμα καὶ
πνεῦμα καὶ θανάτου σχῆμα καὶ πάντα κοινά· ὃς καὶ ζῶσι
συνῆν καὶ τελευτώντων τοὺς νεκροὺς οὐκ ἀπολιμπάνει, ἀλλὰ
ταῖς ψυχαῖς ἡνωμένος ἐστὶν ὅπως καὶ τῇ κωφῇ ταύτῃ (5)
σύνεστι καὶ ἀναμέμικται κόνει· καὶ εἴ που τῶν ὁρωμένων
τούτων ἔστιν εὑρεῖν τὸν Σωτῆρα καὶ κατασχεῖν, ἐπὶ τῶνὀστέων ἔξεστι τούτων.