EO view of doctrinal development?

[ArmyMatt]

again, it was the clearer articulation that was needed as a barrier against erroneous teaching. that’s what every council does.

 

[zippy2006]

no, it’s not. heresy vs truth isn’t dependent on who believes it. Nestorius was a heretic from the moment he unrepentantly diverted from the faith.

It sounds as if you are committed to the view that never at any point in the history of the Church did a theologoumenon become a heresy, or did a theologoumenon become a doctrine or dogma.

What is happening here is that epistemology is being eclipsed. Christ always had two wills, but the Church of the 3rd century did not yet know insofar as it had made no definitive decision regarding this matter. Therefore a 3rd century Monothelite was not a heretic, because Monothelitism was not condemned until much later. A heretic is someone who transgresses something the Church holds doctrinally, not someone who transgresses something the Church will hold doctrinally four centuries in the future.

 

[ArmyMatt]

It sounds as if you are committed to the view that never at any point in the history of the Church did a theologoumenon become a heresy, or did a theologoumenon become a doctrine or dogma.

not at all. theologumen become heresy when the one who espouses it refuses to repent when the Church refutes them.

Christ always had two wills, but the Church of the 3rd century did not yet know insofar as it had made no definitive decision regarding this matter.

not true, Fathers such as St Cyril of Jerusalem taught that Christ had two wills. so people knew before the 6th Council.

Therefore a 3rd century Monothelite was not a heretic, because Monothelitism was not condemned until much later.

not true. that’s not how it works. a third century would be condemned because it was false if he refused to repent.

A heretic is someone who transgresses something the Church holds doctrinally, not someone who transgresses something the Church will hold doctrinally four centuries in the future.

not true. the heretic refuses to repent when confronted by the Church. the reason monothelitism was condemned in century 7 was because that was when that movement was more than just a wrong opinion, but when it had champions for it who had to be confronted because it became a massive issue.

Christ says that the Spirit would lead the Apostles into all the Truth. which means that Nestorius was just as much a heretic for the Apostles unless Christ was lying or mistaken.

 

[CantorSeraphim]

It sounds as if you are committed to the view that never at any point in the history of the Church did a theologoumenon become a heresy, or did a theologoumenon become a doctrine or dogma.

What is happening here is that epistemology is being eclipsed. Christ always had two wills, but the Church of the 3rd century did not yet know insofar as it had made no definitive decision regarding this matter. Therefore a 3rd century Monothelite was not a heretic, because Monothelitism was not condemned until much later. A heretic is someone who transgresses something the Church holds doctrinally, not someone who transgresses something the Church will hold doctrinally four centuries in the future.

based on my understanding of the discussion that has taken place in this thread so far I think that would be because in the EO view theologoumenon are qualitatively different from doctrines or dogmas.

 

[ArmyMatt]

based on my understanding of the discussion that has taken place in this thread so far I think that would be because in the EO view theologoumenon are qualitatively different from doctrines or dogmas.

and different from heresy as well

 

[zippy2006]

based on my understanding of the discussion that has taken place in this thread so far I think that would be because in the EO view theologoumenon are qualitatively different from doctrines or dogmas.

According to ArmyMatt, "theologumen become heresy when the one who espouses it refuses to repent when the Church refutes them."

 

[ArmyMatt]

According to ArmyMatt, "theologumen become heresy when the one who espouses it refuses to repent when the Church refutes them."

yep

 

[prodromos]

From Wikipedia, "Cyril appealed to Pope Celestine I to make a decision, and Celestine delegated to Cyril the job of excommunicating Nestorius if he did not change his teachings within 10 days."

That section of the article you quoted is lacking in citations and references. If you want to make your argument you will need more reliable sources. I should also point out that if you want to argue, you should start a thread in St. Justin Martyr's Corner: Debate an Orthodox Chr
This thread is not the place for it.

 

[abacabb3]

From Wikipedia, "Cyril appealed to Pope Celestine I to make a decision, and Celestine delegated to Cyril the job of excommunicating Nestorius if he did not change his teachings within 10 days."

Nestorius' condemnation was not a foregone conclusion when the Council of Ephesus began. Nestorius was the one who helped to get the Council called through his friendship with the Emperor, who supported Nestorius. Cyril was fighting for a reason, and the battle was won at the Council of Ephesus. This claim from @abacabb3 that Nestorius was always a heretic and the Council played no real role in that reality is untrue to history.

Nonsense, read the council. Nestorianism was contrasted with earlier saints during the council, pointing out his idea was against already established Orthodox doctrine.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Nonsense, read the council. Nestorianism was contrasted with earlier saints during the council, pointing out his idea was against already established Orthodox doctrine.

plus there is all the writings around the council as well, plus the Formula of Reunion, etc.

 

[zippy2006]

Nonsense, read the council. Nestorianism was contrasted with earlier saints during the council, pointing out his idea was against already established Orthodox doctrine.

A Council will always appeal to tradition in its determinations, but it simply does not follow that no determination was made by the Council.

Besides, even if you don't think Ephesus made a definitive decision regarding Nestorianism, the argument I am making still applies generally, as I am only utilizing one example among many. Unless of course you don't think that any Council ever made any definitive decisions. In that case there would be no danger of development.

 

[ArmyMatt]

A Council will always appeal to tradition in its determinations, but it simply does not follow that no determination was made by the Council.

only a determination to more clearly articulate the faith once delivered to all the saints.

Besides, even if you don't think Ephesus made a definitive decision regarding Nestorianism, the argument I am making still applies generally, as I am only utilizing one example among many. Unless of course you don't think that any Council ever made any definitive decisions. In that case there would be no danger of development.

Councils do make definitive decisions, but not in terms of new dogma. the same one and unchanging Holy Spirit Who kept the Church during the time of the Apostles, kept it during the Councils.

 

[zippy2006]

I actually read a paper from an Orthodox priest on the topic, "The Orthodox Rejection of Doctrinal Development." He contrasts pro-development theologians such as Florovsky and Staniloae with anti-development theologians such as Lossky and Louth. What he says of the latter seems indicative of @ArmyMatt's position:

As a result, Lossky and Louth end up assigning an essentially negative role to doctrine, namely, as a protective against heresies. According to Louth, “The main concern of theology is not so much to elucidate anything, as to prevent us, the Church, from dissolving the mystery that lies at the heart of the faith.” In Lossky’s words, doctrines therefore function as “boundaries,” as Tradition’s “external limit,” outside of which lie false interpretations of revelation.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I actually read a paper from an Orthodox priest on the topic, "The Orthodox Rejection of Doctrinal Development." He contrasts pro-development theologians such as Florovsky and Staniloae with anti-development theologians such as Lossky and Louth. What he says of the latter seems indicative of @ArmyMatt's position:

I don’t see how Florovsky and Staniloae are pro-development, especially not in terms of your position.

 

[zippy2006]

I don’t see how Florovsky and Staniloae are pro-development, especially not in terms of your position.

Fr. Lattier's paper is freely available. You could download it an do a search on their names to see where he speaks to this question.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Fr. Lattier's paper is freely available. You could download it an do a search on their names to see where he speaks to this question.

thanks, will do. I went to seminary with Fr Daniel, so this will be interesting.

 

[ArmyMatt]

the paper though doesn’t defend your position. the conclusion he has is more in line with what I have been saying.

 

[zippy2006]

thanks, will do. I went to seminary with Fr Daniel, so this will be interesting.

Oh, wow!

the paper though doesn’t defend your position. the conclusion he has is more in line with what I have been saying.

Oh, I disagree entirely. In fact Fr. Lattier sums up my position almost exactly and he makes many of the same points I have already made. Here is a bit of evidence:

"My goal in this essay is to challenge the foundations of the Orthodox rejection of doctrinal development. I will principally do so by arguing that Newman’s understanding of doctrinal development is in fundamental harmony with the Orthodox understanding of Tradition" (page 390).​

 

[ArmyMatt]

Oh, wow!


Oh, I disagree entirely. In fact Fr. Lattier sums up my position almost exactly and he makes many of the same points I have already made. Here is a bit of evidence:

"My goal in this essay is to challenge the foundations of the Orthodox rejection of doctrinal development. I will principally do so by arguing that Newman’s understanding of doctrinal development is in fundamental harmony with the Orthodox understanding of Tradition" (page 390).​

he and I had a lot of chats over coffee.

and to your second point, that’s not what you were arguing when it came to Ephesus.