| One Bread, One Body - Catholic A forum open to Christians to discuss various Catholic beliefs and issues. |
 | | 
28th January 2004, 10:14 AM
|  | Goodbye, my puppy
  
 | | Join Date: 5th February 2002 Location: South Carolina
Posts: 24,145
Blessings: 329,421
Reps: 224,390 (power: 260) | | | Orthodoxy : Their Development of Doctrine
I posted the following over in the TAW forum yesterday: Originally Posted by NYJ in TAW Over in the OBOB forum, an Orthodox member made the comment that the Catholic Church has developed doctrine, I believe the implication of which was meant to say that by doing so, the Catholic Church has negated Her claims of Apostolicity and Orthodoxy (which, obviously, Catholics do not believe).
Unfortunately, I believe that this claim also has severe implications on the claims of Apostolicity and Orthodoxy for the Orthodox as well, for reasons I will now list, which will bring me to the questions that I have of you.
The Christological Dogmas were defined in several of the Ecumenical Councils: - The Divinity of Christ was established by the First Council of Nicea, held in 325.
- The Theotokos (affirming the humanity of Christ) was declared in the Council of Ephesus in 431.
- The Hypostatic Union was established by the Council of Chalcedon in 451.
- The True Humanity of Christ was defended once again in the Third Council of Constantinople in 680.
Likewise, the Seventh Ecumenical Council, that of Nicea in 787AD (over seven centuries past the death of Christ) affirmed the proper stature of icons and their place in Christian worship.
On can easily look at these rulings and rightly say that they are developments of Christian doctrine, and they would be correct. This of course runs counter to the claims made by my Orthodox counterpart in OBOB who says that development of doctrine runs contrary to the Orthodox faith.
Now, here are my questions: At what point did development of doctrine stop in the Orthodox Church? If I surmise correctly, it would have ended with the Seventh Ecumenical Council, that of Nicea in 787 AD. If I am correct, why is this the case? Was it because of the split between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, preventing the calling of another Ecumenical Council, or does it involve how Ecumenical Councils were typically called, which was by Emperors, something which perhaps cannot be done in this day and age?
Also, would it be possible for another Ecumenical Council to be called, and if so, would it not be possible to see any dogma's issued by such (typically formulated to combat heresy) a council as being seen as a proper development of doctrine?*
Thank you for your answers, and know that I will not be responding to this thread further, unless to clarify any of my comments in this original post.
*Note: I'm not asking if it is probable, I'm asking if it's possible.
So far, I must admit that I'm not really impressed with the answers. The standard reply seems to be:
Well, the Orthodox have never developed doctrine, we believe exactly what the Apostles believe and just clarified what was already believed in the face of heresy.
Of course, this is the same response that the Catholic Church will give anyone when She is accused of the charge of "making up new doctrines". So, in essence, the Orthodox answer isn't really an answer to my question at all, and if it is an answer, it definitely does not seperate Her from Us.
Also left unanswered was my question as to whether or not another Ecumenical Council could ever be called. Why it went unanswered, I do not know, but I suspect the answer is that Yes, an Ecumenical Council could be called in this day and age. If that is correct, then dogma could, once again, be clarified in the face of heresy.
Which, I would point out, is exactly what happens when the Catholic Church has defined a dogma (such as Purgatory and the Assumption of Our Lady) outside of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
Therefore, I say that the Orthodox charge that the Catholic Church changes dogma, thereby relinquishing Her claim to Apostolicity, Catholicity and Orthodoxy is a baseless and hypocritical claim.
NOTE: I have purposely avoided responding to the TAW thread that I opened, just like I promised. Therefore, I expect, as a simple matter of courtesy, that the Orthodox members refrain from commenting in this thread. I would like my Catholic brothers and sisters to leave their own comments in this thread, devoid of Orthodox input. I WILL MAKE REPORTS to keep this thread from being debated and to keep it open. Thank you.
__________________
Out here in the fields, I fight for my meals. I get my back into my living. I don't need to fight, to prove I'm right. I don't need to be forgiven. |
28th January 2004, 10:23 AM
| | Goodbye, my puppy
| | Join Date: 5th February 2002 Location: South Carolina
Posts: 24,145
Blessings: 329,421
Reps: 224,390 (power: 260) | | |
__________________
Out here in the fields, I fight for my meals. I get my back into my living. I don't need to fight, to prove I'm right. I don't need to be forgiven. |
28th January 2004, 10:41 AM
| | | good stuff nyj. I find so often that Catholics and Orthodox are saying the same thing, just using different words to make thier point. The problem is the rash accusations (like invalid apostolicity as you point out) I often see made by the Orthodox.
I think the Orthodox consider "development of doctrine" to be similar to what Catholics call "modernism" - but I could be wrong 
If this is the case, then it is not at all what Catholics mean by the phrase - but again, here we get into proper use of words and eastern vs. western philosophy.
I am not sure how an ecumenical council could be called in EO today since most of the divisions of Orthodoxy are downright nasty with eachother (my observation of course).
I do not think there is any dogma that the Orthodox agree too stating there can be no further ecumenical councils - so I think you are right, there could be another council called, but I do not think it will happen for them until they are reconsiled with the Catholic Church, thus giving them a central authority who can call such a council.
__________________ I try not to respond to moronic posts.
"A Catholic can either continue on the failed and uncertain path of seeking to overturn Roe, which would result in the individual states doing their own thing, not necessarily, or in most states even likely, protective of the unborn. Or Senator Obama’s approach could be followed, whereby prenatal and income support, paid maternity leave and greater access to adoption would be relied upon to reduce the incidence of abortion."
-- Doug Kmeic
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
28th January 2004, 10:53 AM
| | Goodbye, my puppy
| | Join Date: 5th February 2002 Location: South Carolina
Posts: 24,145
Blessings: 329,421
Reps: 224,390 (power: 260) | | Originally Posted by geocajun I find so often that Catholics and Orthodox are saying the same thing, just using different words to make thier point. The problem is the rash accusations (like invalid apostolicity as you point out) I often see made by the Orthodox.
On the first point, I agree. This is the same problem that Catholics have when discussing articles of faith with Protestants as well. As for your second point, I have seen this all the time, but also on the level of holding grudges. If I have to take the blame for the sacking of Constantinople one more time in my dealings with Orthodox believers, I think I'll go insane. Originally Posted by geocajun I think the Orthodox consider "development of doctrine" to be similar to what Catholics call "modernism" - but I could be wrong
This might be the case. They have clearly said that we have "changed" things, which is definitely not the case when Catholics speak of development of doctrine. Originally Posted by geocajun I am not sure how an ecumenical council could be called in EO today since most of the divisions of Orthodoxy are downright nasty with eachother (my observation of course).
I'm not entirely sure if one can be called. Typically they were called by Emperors, and they involved the entire Church. I suspect that one could be called if it involved all of the Orthodox and the Catholic Church, but how it can be called (without an Emperor) I don't know... maybe that would be the sole factor excluding the possibility of any further Ecumenical Councils.
I was really hoping that someone in the Orthodox faith would have answered that question specifically in the TAW forum.
__________________
Out here in the fields, I fight for my meals. I get my back into my living. I don't need to fight, to prove I'm right. I don't need to be forgiven. |
28th January 2004, 10:56 AM
| | | | I believe the EO were represented at Vatican II, but even though they provided input, I am not sure any of the documents are used in their Churches.
__________________ I try not to respond to moronic posts.
"A Catholic can either continue on the failed and uncertain path of seeking to overturn Roe, which would result in the individual states doing their own thing, not necessarily, or in most states even likely, protective of the unborn. Or Senator Obama’s approach could be followed, whereby prenatal and income support, paid maternity leave and greater access to adoption would be relied upon to reduce the incidence of abortion."
-- Doug Kmeic
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
28th January 2004, 11:00 AM
| | Goodbye, my puppy
| | Join Date: 5th February 2002 Location: South Carolina
Posts: 24,145
Blessings: 329,421
Reps: 224,390 (power: 260) | | Originally Posted by geocajun I believe the EO were represented at Vatican II, but even though they provided input, I am not sure any of the documents are used in their Churches.
They were also present for the Council of Florence, originally called by the Byzantine Emperor in hopes of reunifying the East and West. On a large scale, it didn't happen but was responsible for helping smooth the transition for the return of some of our Orthodox brethren, as seen in the Eastern Rites. http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/F/FerraraF1.asp
__________________
Out here in the fields, I fight for my meals. I get my back into my living. I don't need to fight, to prove I'm right. I don't need to be forgiven. |
28th January 2004, 11:13 AM
| | | | I wonder how the EO would have handled it if a dogma had been defined de fide at Vatican II.
__________________ I try not to respond to moronic posts.
"A Catholic can either continue on the failed and uncertain path of seeking to overturn Roe, which would result in the individual states doing their own thing, not necessarily, or in most states even likely, protective of the unborn. Or Senator Obama’s approach could be followed, whereby prenatal and income support, paid maternity leave and greater access to adoption would be relied upon to reduce the incidence of abortion."
-- Doug Kmeic
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
28th January 2004, 11:20 AM
| | Goodbye, my puppy
| | Join Date: 5th February 2002 Location: South Carolina
Posts: 24,145
Blessings: 329,421
Reps: 224,390 (power: 260) | | I found this in a thread I posted last year:
----------------------------- I'm reading "Saint Thomas Aquinas: The Dumb Ox" by G.K. Chesterton and I came across something he wrote that was very insightful and helped refute the criticisms of the Catholic "development" of doctrine. I figured I'd post it here for everyone.
"In short, it was what is technically called a Development in doctrine. But there seems to be a queer ignorance, not only about the technical, but the natural meaning of the word Development. The critics of Catholic theology seem to suppose that it is not so much an evolution as an evasion; that it is best an adaptation. They fancy that its very success is the success of surrender. But that is not the natural meaning of the word Development. When we talk of a child being well-developed, we mean that he has grown bigger and stronger with his own strength; not that he is padded with borrowed pillows or walks on stilts to make him look taller. When we say that a puppy develops into a dog, we do not mean that his growth is a gradual compromise with a cat; we mean that he becomes more doggy and not less. Development is the expansion of all the possibilities and implications of a doctrine, as there is time to distinguish them and draw them out; and the point here is that the enlargment of medieval theology was simply the full comprehension of that theology."
-------------------------------------
More doggy, not less. 
Domini Canis!
__________________
Out here in the fields, I fight for my meals. I get my back into my living. I don't need to fight, to prove I'm right. I don't need to be forgiven. |
28th January 2004, 11:36 AM
| | | hahaha "more doggy, not less" thats awesome
__________________ I try not to respond to moronic posts.
"A Catholic can either continue on the failed and uncertain path of seeking to overturn Roe, which would result in the individual states doing their own thing, not necessarily, or in most states even likely, protective of the unborn. Or Senator Obama’s approach could be followed, whereby prenatal and income support, paid maternity leave and greater access to adoption would be relied upon to reduce the incidence of abortion."
-- Doug Kmeic
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
28th January 2004, 12:36 PM
|  | Legend
32 
| | Join Date: 26th June 2003
Posts: 24,036
Blessings: 100,549
Reps: 58,900,169,916 (power: 58,900,203) | | thats great lol
__________________
"Hear and let it penetrate your heart my dear little one: let nothing discourage you, let nothing alter your heart or countenance. Also do not fear any illness or trouble, anxiety or pain. Am I not here who am your mother? Are you not under my shadow and protection? Am I not your fountain of life? Are you not in the folds of my mantle? In the crossing of my arms? Is there anything else you need?" | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
