Respectful Question on Doctrinal Development

[ArmyMatt]

Greek also.

yep, St Porphyrios refused an audience with the Pope. he said it’d bear no good fruit unless the Pope repents and its better to pray.

 

[RileyG]

except He tells the Apostles they will be led into all truth. not some truth or as much as they can handle, but all of it.

and we do believe in doctrinal development until Pentecost. after Pentecost there is no more doctrinal development since God has perfectly revealed Himself in His Incarnate Son.

are you referring to doctrine ALONE and not liturgy and other traditions? After Pentecost nothing else could be revealed?

In other words, doctrine never changes

Is doctrine and dogma essentially the same?

Blessings

 

[RileyG]

put another way, in his book That They All Shall be Saved, he says that the God of the OT is not the Father of Christ, but actually a pagan storm god. that means he fundamentally disagrees with every Ecumenical Council since Constantinople I.

Nestorians aren’t even that bad.

Oh wow! That almost sounds like Gnosticism and NOT Christian! BIG YIKES!!!

 

[ArmyMatt]

are you referring to doctrine ALONE and not liturgy and other traditions? After Pentecost nothing else could be revealed?

correct. the articulation and praxis develops as the Church deals with heresy, new cultures, etc but the doctrine itself does not change.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Oh wow! That almost sounds like Gnosticism and NOT Christian! BIG YIKES!!!

Marcion 101

 

[RileyG]

Marcion 101

Yup. My thoughts exactly!

 

[RileyG]

correct. the articulation and praxis develops as the Church deals with heresy, new cultures, etc but the doctrine itself does not change.

Thank you, Father

 

[ArmyMatt]

Yup. My thoughts exactly!

yeah, very few Orthodox take him seriously with this stuff. to be fair, his apologetic works against New Atheism and his works on beauty are good, but when he tries to theologize it gets bad.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Thank you, Father

no problem!

 

[The Liturgist]

Marcion 101

Someone once posted a Marcionist sentiment on Fr. Andrew S. Damick’s blog, to which Fr. Andrew replied “How’s the shipping business these days?”

 

[ArmyMatt]

Someone once posted a Marcionist sentiment on Fr. Andrew S. Damick’s blog, to which Fr. Andrew replied “How’s the shipping business these days?”

that sounds like him.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Doctrine does not develop, it is only defended. It is incredible hubris to suggest that we have a deeper understanding of the faith today than the Apostles who sat at Jesus' feet.
The Ecumenical Councils stood in defence of the faith once handed down by the Apostles, against heresy which was tearing people away from the Body of Christ. They stand in stark contrast to the subsequent Councils held by Rome after the schism.

Precisely. The Holy Trinity, hypostatic union, humouseos understanding of God, monarchy of the Father, the Creeds weren’t “invented” at Councils….only spelled out more formally and clarified for the sake of stopping heretical detours made by evil men. Nothing new.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Precisely. The Holy Trinity, hypostatic union, humouseos understanding of God, monarchy of the Father, the Creeds weren’t “invented” at Councils….only spelled out more formally and clarified for the sake of stopping heretical detours made by evil men. Nothing new.

exactly. everything is done to receive, preserve, and pass on that initial experience of the Apostles without addition, subtraction, or distortion.

 

[zippy2006]

The Councils of Nicaea, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, did indeed defend the faith against heresies, yet they also clarified and developed the Church's understanding of central doctrines, such as the nature of Christ and the Trinity (such as the precise terminology of homoousios), this is not a new revelation after Pentecost, rather the allowance of clarity on a certain subject which is causing strife within the Church.

Yep. Ultra-conservative Orthodox twist themselves into knots to avoid these truths. Fr. Lattier provides a more reasonable approach.

 

[The Liturgist]

Precisely. The Holy Trinity, hypostatic union, humouseos understanding of God, monarchy of the Father, the Creeds weren’t “invented” at Councils….only spelled out more formally and clarified for the sake of stopping heretical detours made by evil men. Nothing new.

Very well expressed!

 

[ArmyMatt]

Yep. Ultra-conservative Orthodox twist themselves into knots to avoid these truths. Fr. Lattier provides a more reasonable approach.

not sure who you’re talking about here. like I said a while back, I went to school with Fr Daniel and he isn’t arguing for what is being argued here.

plus, the article I believe is from when he was still Roman Catholic, before he became Orthodox and before he became a priest. not exactly the best evidence to use.

 

[zippy2006]

plus, the article I believe is from when he was still Roman Catholic

First you said that doctrine does not develop, then I gave an article from an Orthodox priest arguing that it does and that Newman's theory is acceptable for Orthodox. Then you said that you agree with him, even though it was fairly clear that you had not read the article. Then you claimed—on pure assertion—that the article is somehow being misconstrued or misapplied (pray tell - how?). And now you claim that the article may have been written when he was a Catholic, so it doesn't count.

You seem to be throwing things at the wall and hoping something sticks.

Here is the obvious truth:

• "The councils represent development of doctrine."

Pretty much everyone accepts that truth. There are a few Orthodox who try to deny it, thus tying themselves up in knots. The program of these Orthodox is this, "We must find a way to define 'development' so that we can have our cake and eat it, too." But the fact of the matter is that if the fallacy of equivocation is avoided, then Orthodox and Catholics are in the same general boat on the matter of development. The only Christians who consistently eschew development of doctrine are Protestants who suspend or deny even the ecumenical councils. The idea that something like the Council of Chalcedon (which was rejected by the Oriental Orthodox) represents no development from what was accepted beforehand is clearly false.

 

[AveChristusRex]

First you said that doctrine does not develop, then I gave an article from an Orthodox priest arguing that it does and that Newman's theory is acceptable for Orthodox. Then you said that you agree with him, even though it was fairly clear that you had not read the article. Then you claimed—on pure assertion—that the article is somehow being misconstrued or misapplied (pray tell - how?). And now you claim that the article may have been written when he was a Catholic, so it doesn't count.

You seem to be throwing things at the wall and hoping something sticks.

Here is the obvious truth:

• "The councils represent development of doctrine."

Pretty much everyone accepts that truth. There are a few Orthodox who try to deny it, thus tying themselves up in knots. The program of these Orthodox is this, "We must find a way to define 'development' so that we can have our cake and eat it, too."

I just was thinking about this and spoke to someone about this, how are we to understand our history if a council is right one day, then wrong the next...dissenters wrong one day, right the next? Do bishops even matter? Like, all bishops agreed at Lyon but a few dissenting clerics did not agree, and thus, essentially, mob-usurped and determined doctrine. What's the point of bishops at a Council if some dissenting clerics are to revoke the council's governing power? It just seems to me like doctrinal anarchy / survival of the fittest. I try to prove points with universally approved catechisms of the east (when I quoted Mohyla's Catechism which taught purgatory), all approved by each patriarchate, but folks reject it because universal approval of a doctrine does not matter, it only matters when it is the doctrine they want to promulgate and push (such as when you said "you claimed—on pure assertion—that the article is somehow being misconstrued or misapplied"). It seems like a echo-chamber to me.

Like how am I supposed to argue for reunification when confirmation bias is so prevalent? "No I don't accept Mohyla's project of union because it wants to re-commune with Rome and accepts all Roman doctrines including primacy... [regardless of the universal acceptance of Mohyla's "Latin" Catechism and the legacy of Baroque Orthodox saints]" (which fits with when you said "...now you claim that the article may have been written when he was a Catholic, so it doesn't count"). Please tell me I'm missing something...I mean no disrespect in saying this, it genuinely confuses me...

 

[zippy2006]

Like how am I supposed to argue for reunification when confirmation bias is so prevalent?

There are some whose bias precludes argument. On these subjects I would recommend the Orthodox priest, Fr. Thomas Hopko, who gives clear and consistent positions, is clear about when he is citing dogmas and when he is citing his own opinion, and who is very firm in opposing Orthodox confirmation bias.

Hopko tells stories of Orthodox who would tell him that even if Catholics recanted of their "errors" they would still refuse reunification with Catholicism, because it is contrary to Orthodoxy to worship with Catholics. More than any other Christian group, Orthodoxy is known for this kind of factionalism and stubbornness - which is not to say that all Orthodox fall into this camp. It is almost certainly a minority.

On forums like CF the denominational groups tend to be very conservative (e.g. Orthodox, Catholics, Lutherans...). I think this is because a progressive culture drives them to found pockets of resistance online, with like-minded individuals. But for this reason what you find on CF is not exactly representative of what you find in the real world.

 

[AveChristusRex]

There are some whose bias precludes argument. On these subjects I would recommend the Orthodox priest, Fr. Thomas Hopko, who gives clear and consistent positions, is clear about when he is citing dogmas and when he is citing his own opinion, and who is very firm in opposing Orthodox confirmation bias.

I have read some of Hopko, though I enjoy Ware more, as he is not immediate resistant to Roman reunification, and considers it in his work. I really look to the work of Zoghby, Mohyla and Likoudis, who (though they have their own faults) do summarize the Orthodox-Catholic Unification position well.

Hopko tells stories of Orthodox who would tell him that even if Catholics recanted of their "errors" they would still refuse reunification with Catholicism, because it is contrary to Orthodoxy to worship with Catholics. More than any other Christian group, Orthodoxy is known for this kind of factionalism and stubbornness - which is not to say that all Orthodox fall into this camp. It is almost certainly a minority.

Sad, but it is not everyone, I know some really nice Orthodox people, on CF as well, who do consider reunification and give it a chance, however they are quiet compared to the loud rejectionists.

On forums like CF the denominational groups tend to be very conservative (e.g. Orthodox, Catholics, Lutherans...). I think this is because a progressive culture drives them to found pockets of resistance online, with like-minded individuals. But for this reason what you find on CF is not exactly representative of what you find in the real world.

Exactly what I stated above! I hope to be one that can be in that middle-ground. I wish there was an Orthodox-Catholic Uniate faith tag on CF, as I see that the reformed denominations have one each, yet set amongst Orthodox and Catholics there is no "in-the-middle" tag that will not be misinterpreted as something outside of Orthodox-Catholic intercommunion (like "Apostolic"). Maybe I'm missing a tag or two?