Respectful Question on Doctrinal Development

[zippy2006]

plus I remembered his conversion and how soon he was sent to seminary. he was there in 2018, and if memory serves he was Orthodox for 3-4 years. which means that essay was written before his conversion which means you posted something from a Catholic layman before he became an Orthodox priest.

It's possible, but when I first posted the article you claimed that you were in agreement with it. Now you are claiming that it doesn't count because he might have been Catholic. So does that mean you agree with an article that doesn't count? Or did you change your agreement based on an ad hominem consideration - namely the possible Catholicism of its author?

I agree that things have developed. I disagree with you on what developed.

What do you say has developed? I think it would be insulting to the Oriental Orthodox to say that nothing changed or developed at Chalcedon.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I would more so be inclined to say that 'development' is a misleading word, rather 'clarification' I think would fit there.

clarification I would agree with. we see that in the Bible itself. Orthodox don’t dispute doctrine has been clarified over time.

 

[zippy2006]

True, I personally see it not in the regard of an overcorrection, but rather as a contradiction,

Sure. I say "overcorrection" only because I can see the rationale of ecclesial conservatism given our cultural context. There are liberal excesses and liberal developments that require correction, but denying development of doctrine altogether is an overcorrection. A number of Catholics have written recently on the dangers of an understanding of development that is excessively liberal/loose; and thus we see some common motivations in both Churches.

 

[ArmyMatt]

It's possible, but when I first posted the article you claimed that you were in agreement with it. Now you are claiming that it doesn't count because he might have been Catholic. So does that mean you agree with an article that doesn't count? Or did you change your agreement based on an ad hominem consideration - namely the possible Catholicism of its author?

or maybe the other possibility that I remember more now about talking to him than I did when you first posted it. or maybe I disagree with its use to defend how doctrinal development has been used in this thread, in which case the article would be fine in another context.

and I pointed out that it was written when he was a Catholic (I believe) because it’s misleading to say it was written by an Orthodox priest. I wouldn’t post something written by John Henry Newman when he was an Anglican as being written by a Catholic Cardinal even if it agreed with Catholicism.

What do you say has developed? I think it would be insulting to the Oriental Orthodox to say that nothing changed or developed at Chalcedon.

articulation of the faith and praxis due to cultural developments. that happens all the time.

 

[ArmyMatt]

and I should add, our debate forum is not the place for non-Orthodox to talk to each other.

 

[zippy2006]

and I should add, our debate forum is not the place for non-Orthodox to talk to each other.

Non-Orthodox can't talk to each other in the debate forum? To be frank, that is petty. And it is not found in the Statement of Purpose for this forum. If you think it is inappropriate for non-Orthodox to talk to each other in the debate forum, then you should propose a change to your SoP.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Non-Orthodox can't talk to each other in the debate forum? To be frank, that is petty. And it is not found in the Statement of Purpose for this forum. If you think it is inappropriate for non-Orthodox to talk to each other in the debate forum, then you should propose a change to your SoP.

it’s not petty. the rules for St Justin’s says non-Orthodox can debate. it doesn’t say they can have a casual conversation with each other. that’s not debating. that’s what the PM is for.

 

[AveChristusRex]

and I should add, our debate forum is not the place for non-Orthodox to talk to each other.

We are not conversing, we are clarifying our position!

 

[ArmyMatt]

We are not conversing, we are clarifying our position!

well played.

 

[zippy2006]

it doesn’t say

You are making an argument from silence. Everything I have written to AveChristusRex pertains to the debate topic.

 

[ArmyMatt]

You are making an argument from silence. Everything I have written to AveChristusRex pertains to the debate topic.

it’s also from the history of this subforum. when non-Orthodox have started debating each other or ignoring us and started talking to each other, the mods have sided with us, agreeing that’s not what this place is for.

 

[The Liturgist]

Non-Orthodox can't talk to each other in the debate forum? To be frank, that is petty. And it is not found in the Statement of Purpose for this forum. If you think it is inappropriate for non-Orthodox to talk to each other in the debate forum, then you should propose a change to your SoP.

I request you to stop as you are intentionally proselytizing our friend @AveChristusRex , a young man baptized in and a communicating member of the Orthodox Church who is trying to work out his issues with aspects of the faith in the debate forum, one which I note Roman Catholicism does not have (nor is your forum known for tolerance of people who reject Vatican II), and furthermore are making inaccurate and disrespectful about the Orthodox faith.

 

[zippy2006]

@The Liturgist - I am debating in the debate forum. Maybe the debate forum is not for you, but I would ask you to stop with your misrepresentative and uncharitable accusations.

 

[zippy2006]

you are intentionally proselytizing

I am proselytizing? By appealing to Lattier, Florovsky, and Staniloae? By claiming that Orthodox intransigence exists in only a minority? You are trading in falsehoods to try to promote your position.

The issue here is that the anti-development position is weak. So when I enter a thread that is 4v1 and make it 4v2 by pointing out the weaknesses of the anti-development position, an attempt at censorship occurs. It has little to do with "talking" or "proselytizing." Like it or not, there are many Orthodox who are comfortable with development.

 

[prodromos]

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.

Fr Daniel was ordained a Deacon in 2018. The article was published in 2011, so it was not written by an Orthodox priest as you have repeatedly claimed.

 

[zippy2006]

Fr Daniel was ordained a Deacon in 2018. The article was published in 2011, so it was not written by an Orthodox priest as you have repeatedly claimed.

Sure - so we have now learned that he was not an Orthodox priest at the time he wrote the article. But given that ArmyMatt said that the article agrees with his own position, I don't see why you guys are so intent on casting aspersions. Do you agree with the article, prodromos?

 

[prodromos]

Sure - so we have now learned that he was not an Orthodox priest at the time he wrote the article. But given that ArmyMatt said that the article agrees with his own position, I don't see why you guys are so intent on casting aspersions. Do you agree with the article, prodromos?

It is too wordy for my simple brain. What bugged me most about his paper was the total lack of examples of what he considered development of doctrine. It had no practical application at all.

 

[zippy2006]

It is too wordy for my simple brain. What bugged me most about his paper was the total lack of examples of what he considered development of doctrine. It had no practical application at all.

I thought it was a fairly good article, but I referenced it because there needs to be some point of focus for the discussion. There needs to be a condition such that people are not just talking past one another, and Lattier was obviously trying to provide that condition.

The problem I have with the anti-development view is that it seems to try to avoid a slippery slope at all costs, and in the process ends up in a place that is not historically tenable. For example and as I said earlier, how can one say to the Oriental Orthodox that no development or change occurred at Chalcedon? Given what we know of the history, I don't think we can say that. The Oriental Orthodox who objected to Chalcedon were not just a bunch of "evil men" and bad actors, yet this is precisely what the anti-development position would require. It is not plausible that none of the councils witnessed good-faith disagreements between Christians which were nevertheless definitively settled.

 

[ArmyMatt]

For example and as I said earlier, how can one say to the Oriental Orthodox that no development or change occurred at Chalcedon? Given what we know of the history, I don't think we can say that.

we can say that if we look at the genuine attempts at reconciliation from the Cyrillian Chalcedonian side.

the writings of St Justinian, the 5th Ecumenical Council, the insertion of the Creed and the hymn Only Begotten into the Liturgy, the henotikon of Justin II, were all attempts to argue that Chalcedon was not an innovation.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The Oriental Orthodox who objected to Chalcedon were not just a bunch of "evil men" and bad actors, yet this is precisely what the anti-development position would require.

no, some were. some were good intentioned but just wrong. just like there were some evil folks who probably accepted Chalcedon, as well as some who accepted it incorrectly (like the strict diaphysites).