.jpg)
Jason Wallace of the Ancient Paths YouTube channel has produced two videos attacking Orthodoxy. The first was "The Failure of Eastern Orthodoxy," and the second was "Cyril Lucaris: Calvinist Patriarch/Orthodox Saint." Craig Truglia and I did two video responses, which you can view here:
More recently, Jason Wallace appeared on "The Dividing Line," with James White, and discussed his videos, but focused on the question of Cyril Lukaris, on an episode entitled "Let’s Make Cyril Lucaris Great Again!"
This latest video doesn't warrant another lengthy video rebuttal, but there were a number of erroneous things asserted that should be corrected.
To sum up his argument, he claims that Cyril Lukaris was in fact a Calvinist, and that the Orthodox tried to cover up this fact because supposedly this would call into question our understanding of Apostolic Succession, he asserts that the Orthodox Church has affirmed that the Council of Jerusalem and the Confession of Dositheus are on the same level as the Seven Ecumenical Councils and Scripture, and that the Orthodox Church has recognized Cyril Lukaris as a saint, despite the fact that he was a Calvinist, and thus a heretic from an Orthodox perspective. All of this, he claims, proves that the Orthodox Church has contradicted itself and is therefore not infallible, as it claims.
Was Cyril Lukaris a Calvinist?
In Jason Wallace's interview with James White, he claimed that I had asserted that the Confession of Cyril Lukaris was a forgery, but the clip he refers to clearly shows that I said "There is an argument to be made that his confession was a forgery, or that it was altered." I put it this way precisely because the arguments I had read were clearly not proof that this was this case, but they seemed reasonable to me at the time. But I would still say that there is an argument to be made to that effect. Jason Wallace's video does present a strong case that this is not true. The bottom line is that it doesn't really matter that much. Heretical occupants of the patriarchal throne of Constantinople are no novelty in the history of the Church.
The historical context here is very complicated, and there was a lot intrigue going on. The Church of Constantinople was under the thumb of the Turks, and so outside powers, both Protestant and Catholic, were able to manipulate Sultans who were more than happy to remove a Patriarch so that they could extract money from whoever wanted him replaced, and so that is why Cyril was removed five times from that position. In that context, lots of people presented one face to one group, and a different one to another. Cyril may well have been such a person.
Stephanie Falkowski, in her dissertation "Not Quite Calvinist: Cyril Lucaris a Reconsideration of His Life and Beliefs," makes the case that Cyril was not as much of a Calvinist as has been generally claimed, but that he was trying to get help from Calvinists, and so tried to sound like as much of a Calvinist as he could, though he often used ambiguous language to accomplish that purpose. I won't take the time to lay out the case that she does, but would recommend those interested give her dissertation a read.
If Cyril Lukaris was In Fact a Calvinist, Would This Disprove Apostolic Succession?
Most of those who have been labelled as heresiarchs (the founder of a heresy or the leader of a heretical sect) have in fact been bishops, and several were Patriarchs of Constantinople. We do not hide this fact. On the Sunday of Orthodoxy, bishops recite the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, and pronounce anathemas on the most prominent of these heretics. So if Cyril Lukaris was a Calvinist, this would be not be an anomaly in Church history.
Wallace asserts that the reason why Orthodox people, going back to the time of the Council in Jerusalem in 1672, have argued that Cyril Lukaris was not a Calvinist because (he mistakenly believes) this would prove Orthodoxy to be false, but even if we assume Cyril was a full blown Calvinist, the reason why the Council of Jerusalem may have argued otherwise is simply because this was not the face he showed to his flock, and so many had positive memories of him. One of the reasons why he would have sought out specifically Protestant allies is that he had spent much of his ministry battling Jesuits who were promoting Uniatism in Ukraine, which was obviously something the Orthodox would have seen as a very laudable part of his history.
Wallace noted that the Council of Jerusalem cited sermons of Cyril Lukaris without providing the dates these sermons were delivered, as if this was an intentional way of clouding the facts. Modern footnotes are relatively recent things. They certainly are often helpful, but the fact that the council didn't provide modern footnotes doesn't prove anything, other than that they were not accustomed to later conventions. It may also be that the texts of these sermons simply were not dated. The fact that this Council argued that his Confession was either forged or altered was not necessarily because they knew this was false. There was a lot of confusion that reigned during this time, and so there are good reasons why they probably believed this to be the case, even if, in fact, this was not true.
Did the Orthodox Church Recognize Cyril Lukaris as a Saint?
Jason Wallace seems to think that the fact that the local Church of Alexandria glorified Cyril Lukaris as a saint means that, if he in fact was a Calvinist, the Orthodox Church would be guilty of error, and it its infallibility would be thus disproven. The problem is that the decisions of one local Church have never been considered to be necessarily infallible. The only way the decisions of a local Council to glorify a saint could be claimed to be approved by the whole Church, would be either for the whole Church to affirm that decision in an Ecumenical Council (and that would entail a Council both claiming to be Ecumenical, and that Council being received by all the local Churches as Ecumenical); or he would need to be officially recognized by all of the local Orthodox Church as a saint. Neither of these things have happened.
I have seen references to the Patriarchate of Constantinople recognizing Cyril Lukaris as a saint in 2022, but I have been unable to find anything that actually demonstrates that this happened. But even if it did, that would still be only two local Churches, and there is no guarantee that such a decision would be infallible. The Orthodox Church has never claimed that it was impossible for a local Orthodox Church to fall into error. This is also no novelty in the history of the Church.
Is the Council of Jerusalem of 1672 an Ecumenical Council?
Jason Wallace stated that the conciliar work of the Orthodox Church continued uninterrupted in history through the later councils of universal authority, but there have been no Ecumenical Councils outside of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, that both claimed to be Ecumenical and have been universally received in the Orthodox Church to be such. One does find references to the Eighth and to the Ninth Ecumenical Councils, and they would certainly be the best candidates to be labeled such, but while these councils have been universally received as authoritative, they have not been universally received as being on the same level as the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
The Council of Jerusalem is considered to be of some authority, but it's decrees were in fact not seen to be infallible, as is shown by the fact that another Council in 1723 made corrections to the Confession of Dositheus (see the Epistle of the Patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Church on the Orthodox Faith (1723). These corrections were reflected in the Russian text of the Confession of Dositheus which was published by St. Philaret of Moscow.
One of the things Jason Wallace highlighted as objectionable in the Confession of Dositheus was what is said in Question 1 of the Confession:
"Question 1
Should the Divine Scriptures be read in the vulgar tongue [common language] by all Christians?
No. Because all Scripture is divinely-inspired and profitable {cf. 2 Timothy 3:16}, we know, and necessarily so, that without [Scripture] it is impossible to be Orthodox at all. Nevertheless they should not be read by all, but only by those who with fitting research have inquired into the deep things of the Spirit, and who know in what manner the Divine Scriptures ought to be searched, and taught, and finally read. But to those who are not so disciplined, or who cannot distinguish, or who understand only literally, or in any other way contrary to Orthodoxy what is contained in the Scriptures, the Catholic Church, knowing by experience the damage that can cause, forbids them to read [Scripture]. Indeed, it is permitted to every Orthodox to hear the Scriptures, that he may believe with the heart unto righteousness, and confess with the mouth unto salvation {Romans 10:10}. But to read some parts of the Scriptures, and especially of the Old [Testament], is forbidden for these and other similar reasons. For it is the same thing to prohibit undisciplined persons from reading all the Sacred Scriptures, as to require infants to abstain from strong meats."
This statement was in the context of the Greek speaking Church, at a time when the Turks suppressed the education of Christians. Cyril Lukaris had published a translation of the New Testament into modern Greek, and this translation was objected to by many. Protestants have many people who still object to updating the King James Version, but these bishops were not objecting to replacing an older translation of the New Testament with a new one -- they were objecting replacing the inspired original text of the Greek New Testament with a modern translation. Greek Orthodox Christians continue to use the original text of the Greek New Testament to this day. It does require some effort for a modern Greek to be able to fully understand it, but I used to have a Greek auto mechanic who had a copy of the Orthodox Bible in Greek, which consisted of the Septuagint text for the Old Testament and the Greek New Testament, which he read regularly. When I admired his copy, he gave it to me, and it is well worn. While one might ridicule people who insist on exclusively reading a 400 year old English translation of the Bible, it should be understandable why Greeks would want to maintain the use of the inspired original Greek text.
Nevertheless, other bishops did object to the way this question was answered in the Confession of Dositheus, and so it was corrected in 1723 to read:
Question 1. – Should all Christians read the Holy Scriptures?
Answer. We know that all Scripture is God-inspired and beneficial, and so necessary that without it it is absolutely impossible to be pious; but not all are able to read it, but only those who know how to test the Scriptures, to study them, and to understand them correctly. Thus, every pious person is allowed to hear the Scriptures, in order to believe in the truth with his heart and confess with his lips unto salvation, but not everyone is allowed to read certain parts of the Scriptures, especially the Old Testament, without guidance. To indiscriminately allow the unskilled to read the Holy Scriptures is the same as to offer infants the use of strong food.
This is the wording reflected in the text of the Confession published by St. Philaret of Moscow. And, you will note that the beginning word "No" has been removed. And as a matter of fact, St. Philaret of Moscow oversaw the publication of the Russian Synodal translation of the Bible, and encouraged people to read it, especially the New Testament. This translation is still used by many Russian speaking Protestants, by the way. When this text speaks of guidance being necessary for the Old Testament, Protestants who constantly published study Bibles for that same purpose should hardly find that objectionable. Providing such guidance has long been one of the primary focuses of catechetical instruction provided to young Orthodox laymen, as one could see by looking at texts, such as "The Law of God: For Study at Home and School," by Fr. Seraphim Slobodskoy, which is 651 pages in length in the English translation, and close to half of that text is about the content of the Bible, and about half of that is focused on the Old Testament (as can be seen online, here).
Wallace argues that the Orthodox Church declared the Council of Jerusalem to be an Ecumenical Council at the Council of Crete in 2016, having "universal authority, just like the Ecumenical Councils," this is incorrect. For one thing, the Churches of Antioch, Georgia, Bulgaria, and Russia did not attend this council, and so far more than half of Orthodox world was not represented -- contrary to Wallace's assertion that "You had Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople, and Moscow, Bulgarians... basically everyone represented." Secondly, even if you look at the Encyclical which Wallace assumes to have referenced the Council of Jerusalem, it actually refers to a council held in Constantinople in 1672, which was held prior to the Council of Jerusalem:
"...and furthermore through the Holy and Great Councils convened in Constantinople, in 1484 to refute the unionist Council of Florence (1438-1439), in 1638, 1642, 1672 and 1691 to refute Protestant beliefs, and in 1872 to condemn ethno-phyletism as an ecclesiological heresy" [Emphasis added].
All of the councils referenced here were held in Constantinople. And while it does cite these councils as being part of the ongoing conciliar work of the Church, it does not actually assert that they are on the same level as the Seven Ecumenical Councils, contrary to Wallace's claim.
Archbishop Vasily (Krivoshein), in his "Symbolic Texts in the Orthodox Church," points out that the Council in 1672 held in Constantinople was attended by 40 bishops, and produced a statement against Calvinism. Later, in that same year, Patriarch Dositheus of Jerusalem, who had participated in that council took advantage of a gathering of clergy and laity for festivities held at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, and presented his Confession. Only 8 bishops were present and signed this document, and so to even speak of a "Council of Jerusalem" is a debatable point, but it was hardly on the same level as an Ecumenical Council, and as stated, was later corrected by a subsequent council, and so while the corrected Confession of Dositheus is a document of some authority, neither that council nor this document was ever seen as an infallible.
Jaroslav Pelikan, who was a preeminent scholar on the history of Christian doctrine (who was a Lutheran most of his life, but converted to Orthodoxy in 1998) discusses in some detail the status of texts like the Confession of Dositheus in his book "Credo: Historical and Theological Guide to Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition," which has a chapter on the Orthodox Church (which includes a telling subsection entitled "The Ambivalence of the Orthodox Church Toward "Symbolic Books"). Toward the end of that chapter, Pelikan sums things up as follows:
"Drawing upon this liturgical confession of the faith of the church and shaping it in turn, the doctrinal decisions and formulations of the seven church councils between 325 and 787 stand as the formal deposit of normative dogma for Eastern Orthodox teaching. "The West incessantly asks us for the symbolical books of Orthodoxy," the Bulgarian Orthodox New Testament scholar Nikolaj Nikaronovic Glubokovsky once observed with some annoyance. "We have no need of them. The faith of the seven first councils is sufficient for us." In one sense, therefore, the sacred tradition of the seven ecumenical councils... is a legacy that Eastern Orthodoxy shares with Roman Catholicism, as well as with those other Western confessions in which the validity of the ecumenical councils is acknowledged, albeit with varying degrees of authority being assigned to them.
In another sense, however, the Eastern Orthodox view of the councils is peculiar to the East. One reason for this is that no later actions of any church, neither those actions that lay claim to the title "ecumenical" in Western dogmatics and canon law nor even the actions of the East itself since 787 at "provincial synods" nor the Eastern Orthodox "confessions" may be ranked on a level with the seven councils" (Credo: Historical and Theological Guide to Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2003), p. 413f).
Only God knows the future. The day may come when a new Ecumenical Council is held and is received as being on the same level as the first seven, but that day has not come yet. The Church managed for nearly three centuries without an Ecumenical Council, and so having had Seven, the urgency for another is not as great as many would like to imagine.
Do the Orthodox See the Service of the Church as Being on the Same Level as Scripture?
Another claim Wallace makes is that we see the services as being on the same level as the Scriptures, and cites as an example an Akathist to St. Constantine the Great which states that St. Constantine was baptized by St. Sylvester of Rome, despite the fact that Eusebius and other contemporary writers stated that he was baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was later condemned as an Arian. He claims that this is an example of the Orthodox Church trying to re-write history to cover up uncomfortable facts.
First off, it is the Orthodox Church that preserved texts, like Eusebius' History of the Church, and so obviously the Church is not engaged in any cover up there. Secondly, the fact that a bishop who was in good standing with the Church at the time later was condemned as a heretic does not mean that those who were baptized by him were heretics, or that the baptism was invalid.
I am not sure where Wallace got the impression that we put the services of the Church on the same level as Scripture, but we do see universally received services as being part of the Tradition of the Church, as are the Scriptures. However, not all parts of the Tradition of the Church are on the same level of authority, nor would we affirm that everything that is true of the Scriptures is equally true of the services. Even within Scripture, not all the Scriptures are on the same level. The book of Esther, for example, is not on the same level of authority as the Gospels -- though we would affirm that all Scripture is inspired and inerrant.
When it comes to the services, not all services are on the same level of authority. Akathists, aside from the Akathist to the Mother of God, are not appointed to be served in the regular services of the Church. They are a popular genre, because they are easy for laymen to use on their own. However, most of them have not been endorsed by even a single local Orthodox Church, much less the entire Church. The texts of the liturgies of St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, and the Presanctified Liturgy are certain held in very high regard. Menaion services vary in their authority, because not all of them are used universally in the Church. But we would affirm that any service that is used universally does not contain doctrinal error, and they certainly do lay out our Faith.
The principle of Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi -- which means "the rule (or law) of prayer is the rule of Faith," was first articulated (at least so far as we have it in writing) by St. Prosper of Aquitaine, who wrote:
"Let us consider the sacraments of priestly prayers, which having been handed down by the apostles are celebrated uniformly throughout the whole world and in every Catholic Church so that the law of praying might establish the law of believing" (Patrologia Latina 51:209-210).
And this stands to reason. I would encourage those who want to dig into this question to read the book "The Shape of the Liturgy," by Dom Gregory Dix. In that book he makes the compelling case that all the ancient Liturgies of the Church have a common order, that this order is rooted in Jewish worship, and so this order is apostolic in origin. It is not as if Christians in 350 would have looked over the shoulder of non-Christian Jews and would have started copying their forms of worship. The only time in Church history that Jewish forms of worship could have entered the Tradition of the Church is the time of the Apostles themselves. And so this is a clear example of Apostolic Tradition which has been preserved by the Church.
Does the Orthodox Church Anathematize All Protestants?
The Church certainly condemns Protestant heresies, but we do not pass judgment on individuals who are outside of the Church. Furthermore, when an anathema is proclaimed, unless it names specific people, it is not a judgment on any individual. There are many people in the Church who hold opinions that are heretical, but in most cases, this would simply be due to ignorance. If an Orthodox laymen stated something that was a condemned heresy, they would only be subject to an anathema, if they refused to be corrected. Anathemas and canons do not work like landmines, which go off on their own accord when someone tramples on them. Similarly, when you have a speed limit sign, the sign does not write you a ticket -- a police officer has to write you a ticket, and then you have an opportunity to dispute the ticket in court. Likewise, if someone says or does something contrary to a canon or an anathema, there are things that the authorities in the Church have to do to make the respective penalty apply to an individual.
This is made very clear in the most authoritative compilation of the Ecumenical Canons:
"We must know that the penalties provided by the Canons, such as deposition, ex- communication, and anathematization, are imposed in the third person according, to grammatical usage, there being no imperative available. In such cases in order to express a command, the second person would be necessary. I am going to explain the matter better. The Canons command the council of living bishops to depose the priests, or to excommunicate them, or to anathematize laymen who violate the canons. Yet, if the council does not actually effect the deposition of the priests, or the excommunication, or the anathematization of laymen, these priests and laymen, are neither actually deposed, nor excommunicated, nor anathematized. They are liable to stand trial, however, judicially, here as touching deposition, excommunication, or anathematization, but there as touching divine vengeance. Just as when a king commands his slave to whip another who did something that offended him, if the slave in question fail to execute the king’s command, he will nevertheless be liable to trial for the whipping. So those silly men make a great mistake who say that at the present time all those in holy orders who have been ordained contrary to canons are actually deposed from office. It is an inquisitional tongue that foolishly twaddles thus without understanding that the command of canons, without the practical activity of the second person, or, more plainly speaking, of the council, remains unexecuted, since it does not act of itself and by itself immediately and before judgment. The Apostles themselves explain themselves in their c. XLVI unmistakably, since they do not say that any bishop or presbyter who accepts a baptism performed by heretics is already and at once actually in the state of having been deposed, but that they command that he be deposed, or, at any rate, that he stand trial, and, if it be proved that he did so, then “we command that he be stripped of holy orders by your decision,” they say" (D. Cummings, trans., The Rudder of the Orthodox Catholic Church: The Compilation of the Holy Canons, Saints Nicodemus and Agapius (West Brookfield, MA: The Orthodox Christian Educational Society, 1983), p. 5f [emphasis added]).
Of course if someone is guilty of sin, either in terms of moral failures or of intentionally harboring heretical views and refusing the correction of the Church, even if the authorities in the Church never take any action either because they are kept hidden, or the authorities neglect their duties, this does not mean that the person will not go to hell as a result, if they refuse to repent. But this does mean, contrary to Donatism, that even if a bishop or priest is secretly living a double life for which they should be removed from the clergy, so long as the Church allows them to continue to function in their role, the sacraments they perform continue to have the grace of God, because the grace of God is not dependent on the worthiness of those performing them. Otherwise, one could never be sure that they ever received any sacrament.
Conclusion
I am sure Jason Wallace is a sincere man, but I would encourage him to spend more time studying what we actually believe, before he comments any further about the Orthodox Faith. He no doubt believes what his own church teaches. I am sure he thinks he is doing the work of the Lord by defending his own beliefs, and attacking what he perceives to be errors in the teachings of the Orthodox Church, but anyone who is familiar with what we believe cannot fail to notice how frequently he fails to understand even some of the most basic teachings of our Faith.
For more information, see also:
Are Ecumenical Councils Infallible?