EO view of doctrinal development?

[ArmyMatt]

See for example this page, which includes a link to an article that Stăniloae wrote on the topic.

thanks!

Sure, but it's a bit hard to know where condemnation ends and doctrine begins. For example, it would seem that when Cyril and Nestorius initiated their Christological controversy both positions were developments from what had come before, and Cyril's development contradicted Nestorius' development. The condemnation of Nestorius' position is simultaneous with the development of Christological doctrine at the Council of Ephesus.

except that St Cyril’s was to defend something (Mary’s proper title of Theotokos) correctly. Nestorius defended the distinction between Natures to an extreme the Church never went down.

Now, was the theology of Ephesus "completely unknown" to the Church prior to Ephesus? Well, it was not unknown to those who were following Cyril, but it was unknown to those who were following Nestorius.

if you read the dialogues between both camps, they were absolutely aware of each other. the theology of Ephesus was absolutely known by them.

 

[zippy2006]

thanks!

Sure thing.

if you read the dialogues between both camps, they were absolutely aware of each other. the theology of Ephesus was absolutely known by them.

True, but what I am saying is that "the unknown thing" = "the orthodoxy of Cyril's position" (simplifying a bit). So those who were following Nestorius did not know that Cyril's position was orthodox until Ephesus occurred.

In one way I would like to say--thinking exclusively in terms of dogma for the moment--that any council that does not include development is not a necessary council. A large part of the reason why the Council of Ephesus was necessary was because a decision needed to be made between the theology of Cyril and the theology of Nestorius. If Ephesus was not developing and handing on something which had previously been absent, then whence the need for Ephesus? Or, if the pre-Ephesus Church already possessed the fullness of Ephesus' doctrine of Christology, then surely the council of Ephesus was not needed. In this way it would seem that councils and development go hand in hand.

(I would admit that the Catholic Church is now reaping the fruits of a lax notion of development, but I would at the same time maintain that some form of development is necessary and traditional.)

 

[ArmyMatt]

In one way I would like to say--thinking exclusively in terms of dogma for the moment--that any council that does not include development is not a necessary council. A large part of the reason why the Council of Ephesus was necessary was because a decision needed to be made between the theology of Cyril and the theology of Nestorius. If Ephesus was not developing and handing on something which had previously been absent, then whence the need for Ephesus? Or, if the pre-Ephesus Church already possessed the fullness of Ephesus' doctrine of Christology, then surely the council of Ephesus was not needed. In this way it would seem that councils and development go hand in hand.

the articulation is what is developed to be a barrier against heresy. that’s been the MO since Acts. development does happen, but it’s never something dogmatically new.

 

[zippy2006]

the articulation is what is developed to be a barrier against heresy. that’s been the MO since Acts. development does happen, but it’s never something dogmatically new.

But if heresy is the rejection of a dogma, and Nestorius was a heretic after but not before the Council of Ephesus, then it would seem that the Council of Ephesus must have developed a new dogma. Without a new dogma there could not be a new heretic nor a new heresy, so to speak.

 

[CantorSeraphim]

the articulation is what is developed to be a barrier against heresy. that’s been the MO since Acts. development does happen, but it’s never something dogmatically new.

You are saying that development does happen, but its never something dogmatically new...but I think you would agree that we do see new dogmatic language (homoousious for example), or new dogmatic concepts that were not articulated before (for example Constantinople III on the energies and wills of Christ).

So @zippy2006 seems to understand the language or concept as the dogma (hence new dogmas can arise over time), while you seem to be saying that the dogma is not to be conflated with the language or concepts we use to articulate it (hence, the articulation can develop, but the dogma remains always the same).

Is this correct? Forgive me if I am misrepresenting either of your positions.

 

[CantorSeraphim]

To add to my comment above, while researching I came across the following from Fr. Georges Florovsky of which I've only excerpted a small piece:

"Dogma is an intuitive truth, not a discursive axiom which is accessible to logical development. The whole meaning of dogma lies in the fact that it is expressed truth. Revelation discloses itself and is received in the silence of faith, in silent vision — this is the first and apophatic step of the knowledge of God. The entire fullness of truth is already contained in this apophatic vision, but truth must be expressed. Man, however, is called not only to be silent but also to speak, to communicate. The silentium mysticum does not exhaust the entire fulness of the religious vocation of man. There is also room for the expression of praise. In her dogmatic confession the Church expresses herself and proclaims the apophatic truth which she preserves. The quest for dogmatic definitions is therefore, above all, a quest for terms. Precisely because of this the doctrinal controversies were a dispute over terms. One had to find accurate and clear words which could describe and express the experience of the Church. One had to express that spiritual Vision which presents itself to the believing spirit in experience and contemplation.”

The full article can be found here:

 

[prodromos]

But if heresy is the rejection of a dogma, and Nestorius was a heretic after but not before the Council of Ephesus, then it would seem that the Council of Ephesus must have developed a new dogma. Without a new dogma there could not be a new heretic nor a new heresy, so to speak.

Nestorius was teaching heresy before the Council. His teaching was declared heretical by the Council in defending the teaching handed down by the Apostles.
His error was causing Christ to be a human person and a divine person, not a single person who was both human and divine. Prior to the heresy I suspect the beginning of John's Gospel was sufficient to articulate the dogma of the Church.

 

[ArmyMatt]

But if heresy is the rejection of a dogma, and Nestorius was a heretic after but not before the Council of Ephesus, then it would seem that the Council of Ephesus must have developed a new dogma. Without a new dogma there could not be a new heretic nor a new heresy, so to speak.

no, Nestorius was a heretic the moment he started espousing heresy. his teaching was the innovation. Ephesus was called because of his refusal to repent.

 

[ArmyMatt]

You are saying that development does happen, but its never something dogmatically new...but I think you would agree that we do see new dogmatic language (homoousious for example), or new dogmatic concepts that were not articulated before (for example Constantinople III on the energies and wills of Christ).

sort of. your first point is correct as in the language does develop. however, the second is not. Constantinople III didn’t have a new concept that wasn’t articulated before. the two wills and energies can be found in Fathers much earlier than the council. the Council was a more formal, clear articulation of the dogmatic concept.

So @zippy2006 seems to understand the language or concept as the dogma (hence new dogmas can arise over time), while you seem to be saying that the dogma is not to be conflated with the language or concepts we use to articulate it (hence, the articulation can develop, but the dogma remains always the same).

correct, no new dogma.

 

[abacabb3]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I have a question for my EO brethern: How do the EO view the concept of doctrinal development?

Do you consider this a valid category for talking about the history of dogma? Is it commonly appealed to in theological discussions? If not - is there a particular objection you have to it?

The most serious article on the subject, as it contrasts Cardinal Newman with Fathr Dmitru Stanlioe's published work on the question is here: Staniloae’s Insight Into Orthodox Doctrinal Development

 

[abacabb3]

Now, was the theology of Ephesus "completely unknown" to the Church prior to Ephesus? Well, it was not unknown to those who were following Cyril, but it was unknown to those who were following Nestorius.

Ephesus claims their theology was always that of the Church, quoting Scriptures and fathers to that effect. Vincent de Lerins with Ephsus asserts Nestorianism was never found before in the Church, that it lacks antiquity.

What don't believe is that Heresy X is ok until a council convenes. Heresy is always heresy. Correct doctrine is always correct. Ironically, even the energy-essence distinction was taken for granted by Dionysius, Athenagoras, and Irenaeus. Orthodoxy does not have any late, johnny come lately, dogmas.

 

[abacabb3]

just curious, but where does he teach that? because I you can say that there is a development in a sense in terms of the Church’s response to heresy (ie homoousious at Nicaea), but not development as in something that was wrong in the 400s AD is now okay, or something theologically completely unknown has been added.

Staniloae teaches that doctrines are clarified termiologically, but not substantially. So, the term hypostasis can be developed and clarified so this doctrine is clearer today than it was when St Paul wrote Heb 1:3, but they do not changed substantially (in RCism, they go from original fathers thought the Theotokos has original sin or that icons were not venerated, and suddenly the opposite is dogma--that is a substantial change.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Staniloae teaches that doctrines are clarified termiologically, but not substantially. So, the term hypostasis can be developed and clarified so this doctrine is clearer today than it was when St Paul wrote Heb 1:3, but they do not changed substantially (in RCism, they go from original fathers thought the Theotokos has original sin or that icons were not venerated, and suddenly the opposite is dogma--that is a substantial change.

correct. this is also what we see in the Bible, as the Church started encountering Greeks.

Mark 12:30 is a clearer definition of Deuteronomy 6:5, not a new dogma.

 

[CantorSeraphim]

Staniloae teaches that doctrines are clarified termiologically, but not substantially. So, the term hypostasis can be developed and clarified so this doctrine is clearer today than it was when St Paul wrote Heb 1:3, but they do not changed substantially (in RCism, they go from original fathers thought the Theotokos has original sin or that icons were not venerated, and suddenly the opposite is dogma--that is a substantial change.

Thank you @abacabb3, the distinction between terminological and substantial change is a better way to put it than the way I was trying to articulate it above. The example you give from Hebrews is great - really helps me to see the difference.

 

[CantorSeraphim]

What don't believe is that Heresy X is ok until a council convenes. Heresy is always heresy. Correct doctrine is always correct.

Yes, unless one holds a purely forensic view of doctrine and how it is salvific.

 

[zippy2006]

What don't believe is that Heresy X is ok until a council convenes. Heresy is always heresy. Correct doctrine is always correct.

You have to ask yourself why Nestorius wasn't deposed until 431.

 

[ArmyMatt]

You have to ask yourself why Nestorius wasn't deposed until 431.

because the Church always gives people time to repent. he also didn’t become Archbishop of Constantinople and until 428, so it’s not like he was espousing heresy that long.

 

[zippy2006]

because the Church always gives people time to repent. he also didn’t become Archbishop of Constantinople and until 428, so it’s not like he was espousing heresy that long.

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.

 

[ArmyMatt]

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.

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.

 

[zippy2006]

A large part of the reason why the Council of Ephesus was necessary was because a decision needed to be made between the theology of Cyril and the theology of Nestorius. If Ephesus was not developing and handing on something which had previously been absent, then whence the need for Ephesus?