Question on Development of Doctrine

[nyj]

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:

1. The Divinity of Christ was established by the First Council of Nicea, held in 325.
2. The Theotokos (affirming the humanity of Christ) was declared in the Council of Ephesus in 431.
3. The Hypostatic Union was established by the Council of Chalcedon in 451.
4. 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.

 

[MariaRegina]

From what my Orthodox Priest told me, consistent with Bishop Kallistos Ware's book The Orthodox Church:

The Holy Orthodox Church in the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils did not develop her theology instead she clarified her doctrines because of the heretics. These councils were called because of the heretics and the canons of these holy councils were simply refuting the heterodox claims.

 

[TWells]

Being new to Orthodoxy myself and ive been studying the development of doctrine for a little while now. I would say it has not so much to with the development per se as it does with the fact that the Western Church continues to develop and that those developments are not in line with Tradition or the Fathers. For example I find it interesting that Rome's view of the Atonement originates from the 12th century rather than the 1st or 2nd.

As for the possibility of modern ecumenical councils I thought I had read somewhere that councils since then basically were but their was discussion as to whether they should carry the title "ecumenical". Im sure there is someone here who knows.

 

[Photini]

It is held that the Faith was delivered in it's fullness to the Apostles. But boundaries were laid in the Councils when heresy arose... doctrines were not developed but a fence erected, so to speak. So it's not that we are more enlightened now than the Fathers, but fences and boundaries erected to protect and keep untainted the Faith "As the Prophets saw, as the Apostles taught, as the Church received, as the Teachers laid down as doctrine, as the World has agreed, as grace has shown." (from the Synodikon of Orthodoxy)

 

[Photini]

whoops...double post

 

[prodromos]

[irony]Of course we developed doctrine, I mean the Apostles didn't really know that Christ was divine and naturally never considered Mary to be the Mother of God for goodness sakes. Likewise they never even considered God to be triune, Father, Son and Holy Spirit or that Christ was fully God and fully man. Of course Luke wasn't painting icons for veneration either. No, the Apostles were simply recording what they were directed to by the Holy Spirit and didn't really understand the full implications of their inspired words, and the Traditions they passed on were likewise lacking. It was left to more enlightened generations to discern the full implications of their spoken and written words[/irony]

 

[MariaRegina]

[irony]Of course we developed doctrine, I mean the Apostles didn't really know that Christ was divine and naturally never considered Mary to be the Mother of God for goodness sakes. Likewise they never even considered God to be triune, Father, Son and Holy Spirit or that Christ was fully God and fully man. Of course Luke wasn't painting icons for veneration either. No, the Apostles were simply recording what they were directed to by the Holy Spirit and didn't really understand the full implications of their inspired words, and the Traditions they passed on were likewise lacking. It was left to more enlightened generations to discern the full implications of their spoken and written words[/irony]

Heretical to even think of it!

Change? what change?

Development, God forbid. Development is change.

And Jesus said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan."

 

[prodromos]

Consider also that the Oriental Orthodox did not take part in the last few "Ecumenical Councils" as they and the Eastern Orthodox were/are in schism (as are the Catholics too). They have been in isolation from the Eastern Orthodox for almost 1500 years and were not beset by the heresies that were dealt with in those latter councils. If you ask them however, if the points of faith defined by those councils are Orthodox, they will tell you "Yes, that's what we have always believed.". If you ask them about "filioque", "purgatory", "the immaculate conception" and "papal supremacy and infallibility" though, I suspect you will get a different response

John.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Consider also that the Oriental Orthodox did not take part in the last few "Ecumenical Councils" as they and the Eastern Orthodox were/are in schism (as are the Catholics too). They have been in isolation from the Eastern Orthodox for almost 1500 years and were not beset by the heresies that were dealt with in those latter councils. If you ask them however, if the points of faith defined by those councils are Orthodox, they will tell you "Yes, that's what we have always believed.". If you ask them about "filioque", "purgatory", "the immaculate conception" and "papal supremacy and infallibility" though, I suspect you will get a different response

John.

Or we can just read the Fathers for ourselves without asking anyone and see what they say about these topics.

 

[prodromos]

Or we can just read the Fathers for ourselves without asking anyone and see what they say about these topics.

Of course defining dogma should only be left to those who have acheived dispassion and have become pure vessels of the Holy Spirit. We who are slaves to our passions, read the Fathers and like to think we understand what they are saying, but we are like primary school graduates who read chemistry textbooks and think they understand chemistry when only someone who has spent years of study and experience in that particular field can properly appreciate that which the books contain.

John.

 

[Photini]

Prodromos,

Am I mistaken in feeling that the notion of "development of doctrine" is somehow related to the thought present in Rationalism? I have read in several books that Rationalism or Scholasticism arose in the West, and that the western churches tend to approach theology in this manner.
I have even become more aware of this here in the US, about our approach to things. We attack things with our minds and rationalize things in order to understand them. I observed this tendancy in myself as I began to approach Orthodoxy.

 

[MariaRegina]

Of course defining dogma should only be left to those who have acheived dispassion and have become pure vessels of the Holy Spirit. We who are slaves to our passions, read the Fathers and like to think we understand what they are saying, but we are like primary school graduates who read chemistry textbooks and think they understand chemistry when only someone who has spent years of study and experience in that particular field can properly appreciate that which the books contain.

John.

This is the one reason why I disagreed with the book, Jesus, Peter and the Keys by Scott et al.

This book was written by Protestant converts to Catholicism -- in it they use protestant reasoning (rationalism) to prove papal infallibility. They read into different Biblical passages and into the writings of the Holy Fathers what they want to hear. They use the idea of "proof texts", which is rationalism.

There is a danger of reading the Holy Bible and the Holy Fathers without the guidance of the Holy Fathers ... which is only possible within an Orthodox context. A person must be in submission to the Orthodox Church and under the guidance of a wise Priest. It is a matter of acquiring the Orthodox Ethos, which takes a lifetime. It is a lived experience, the experience of the Holy Spirit guiding our lives through the Holy Mysteries and Holy Liturgical Services.

 

[ChoirDir]

In response to NYJ's question about Eccumenical Councils. Since the Churches were divided in 1054, an Eccumenical Council would be not possible since we are not one. It should be noted that there have been productive meetings between Catholic and Orthodox bishops regarding matters of the schism. Some of these discussions have included interfaith marriages, 2 Easters, Filioque.

In October of 2003, the following statement was issued regarding the Filioque:

WASHINGTON, DC -- The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation concluded a four-year study of the Filioque on October 25, when it unanimously adopted an agreed text on this difficult question that has divided the two communions for many centuries. This important development took place at the 65th meeting of the Consultation, held at St. Paul's College in Washington, DC, under the joint chairmanship of Metropolitan Maximos of the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh and Archbishop Pilarczyk of Cincinnati.

The original version of the Creed most Christian churches accept as the standard expression of their faith dates from the First Council of Constantinople, in 381, and has been used by Orthodox Christians since that time. Towards the end, this Creed states that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father." The word Filioque ("and the Son") was later added to the Latin version of this Creed used in the West, so that the phrase as most western Christians know it reads that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son." This modification appeared in some areas of Western Europe as early as the 6th century but was accepted in Rome only in the 11th century. This change in the wording of the Creed and the underlying variations in understanding the origin and procession of the Holy Spirit within the Trinity have long been considered a church-dividing issue between Catholics and Orthodox. The Consultation had been studying this question since 1999 in the hope of eventually releasing an agreed statement.

Entitled "The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?", the ten-thousand word text has three major sections. The first, "The Holy Spirit in the Scriptures," summarizes references to the Spirit in both the Old and New Testaments. The more lengthy second section, "Historical Considerations," provides an overview of the origins of the two traditions concerning the eternal procession of the Spirit and the slow process by which the Filioque was added to the Creed in the West. It also shows how this question concerning Trinitarian theology became entwined with disputes regarding papal jurisdiction and primacy, and reviews recent developments in the Catholic Church which point to a greater awareness of the unique and normative character of the original Greek version of the Creed as an expression of the faith that unites the Orthodox East and Catholic West. The third section, "Theological Reflections," emphasizes our limited ability to speak of the inner life of God, points out that both sides of the debate have often caricatured the positions of the other, and lists areas in which the traditions agree. It then explores the differences that have developed regarding terminology, and identifies both theological and ecclesiological divergences that have arisen over the centuries.

In a final section, the Consultation makes eight recommendations to the members and bishops of the two churches. It recommends that they "enter into a new and earnest dialogue concerning the origin and person of the Holy Spirit." It also proposes that in the future both Catholics and Orthodox "refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side" on this subject, and that the theologians of both traditions make a clearer distinction between the divinity of the Spirit, and the manner of the Spirit's origin, "which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution." The text also urges theologians to distinguish, as far as possible, the theological issues concerning the origin of the Holy Spirit from ecclesiological issues, and suggests that attention be paid in the future to the status of councils of both our churches that took place after the seven ecumenical councils of the first millennium. And finally, in view of the fact that the Vatican has affirmed the "normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381" in its original Greek version, the Consultation recommends that the Catholic Church use the same text (without the Filioque) "in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use," and declare that the anathema pronounced by the Second Council of Lyons against those who deny that the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son is no longer applicable.

At this meeting the members also took time to review major developments in the lives of their churches. Among the items discussed were the seminar on Petrine Ministry that was held in the Vatican in May; the granting of autonomous status to the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America; the Orientale Lumen Conference held in Washington, DC, last June; the recent Patriarchal Assembly of the Maronite Catholic Church; the presence of a delegation from the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Rome in late June for the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul headed by Archbishop Demetrios of America; the seminar sponsored by Pro Oriente on the union of Transylvanian Orthodox with Rome in Cluj, Romania, last July; the Faith and Order response to Ut Unum Sint; statements by the two churches on same-sex marriages; and the recent meeting of the Joint Committee of Orthodox and Catholic Bishops in Baltimore.

The 66th meeting of the Consultation is scheduled to take place from June 1 to 3, 2004, at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Brookline, Massachusetts, and the 67th meeting from October 21 to 23, 2004.

The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation is sponsored jointly by the Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the Americas (SCOBA), the Bishops* Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the USCCB, and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. Since its establishment in 1965, the Consultation has now issued 22 agreed statements on various topics. All these texts are now available on the website of the US Catholic Conference at: http://www.usccb.org/seia/dialogues.htm.

In addition to the two co-chairmen, the Orthodox members of the Consultation include Father Thomas FitzGerald (Secretary), Archbishop Peter of New York, Father Nicholas Apostola, Prof. Susan Ashbrook Harvey, Father James Dutko, Prof. Paul Meyendorff, Father Alexander Golitzin, Father Emmanuel Gratsias, Dr. Robert Haddad, Father Paul Schnierla, Father Robert Stephanopoulos, and Bishop Dimitrios of Xanthos, General Secretary of SCOBA (staff). The additional Catholic members are Father Brian Daley, SJ (secretary), Msgr. Frederick McManus, Prof. Thomas Bird, Father Peter Galadza, Msgr. John D. Faris, Father John Galvin, Sister Jean Goulet, CSC, Father Sidney Griffith, ST, Father John Long, SJ, Father David Petras, Prof. Robin Darling Young, and Father Ronald Roberson, CSP (staff).

 

[MariaRegina]

I would say that this thread has outlived its usefulness. Did you see the thread over at OBOB? More lies. This reveals the intention of nyj all along. Flaming.

 

[ChoirDir]

Chanter did you notice how none of the Catholics respond to their views on the recent agreement arrived at by the 2 Churches concerning the Filioque. It basically tells the Catholic Church to use the Greek version of the Creed agreed to at Nicea and Constantinople. Now let's take this a step further. If they agree to not use the Filioque then wouldn't that mean that all those Popes that insisted on its use be considered fallible?

 

[MariaRegina]

Chanter did you notice how none of the Catholics respond to their views on the recent agreement arrived at by the 2 Churches concerning the Filioque. It basically tells the Catholic Church to use the Greek version of the Creed agreed to at Nicea and Constantinople. Now let's take this a step further. If they agree to not use the Filioque then wouldn't that mean that all those Popes that insisted on its use be considered fallible?

NYJ gave his answer a while ago. He said that the American Catholic Bishops are not infallible and their statement will probably be overruled by the Vatican.

So it's moot.

Again, look at nyj's record -- his last posts on the tollhouses prove that he wants to inflame us. He didn't need to bring up the tollhouses over in OBOB, but he did so because he knew he could inflame and derail us -- which is precisely what happened.

 

[Benedicta00]

Elizabeth,

I believe you are going a little over board on the contempt you are showing publicly for nyj. Why don’t you put your energy into attacking his arguments and not him. In a formal debate, this would cost your side points.

 

[MariaRegina]

Again, I see no further usefulness of this thread. It should be closed.

 

[thereselittleflower]

How would removing the filioque mean that the Catholic Church still doesn't believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son? Even if we go back to the Greek Creed, what does that say? It will still be understood that Jesus participates in the procession of the Holy Spirit, and that the reason for using the filioque was assert that The Son is equal to The Father . .

Nothing would be denied or changed in Catholic Theology by going back to the Greek Creed . .


Peace in Him!

 

[MariaRegina]

Therese -- why don't you go over to the thread in TAW where we already have an online discussion of the Filioque.

Filioque - Was it briefly accepted by the Eastern Church?

http://www.christianforums.com/t86248

Do we need two parallel discussions? -- nyj already created a thread for OBOB people only over in the OBOB forum in which he has asked the Orthodox not to respond. Besides, I'd rather discuss things in the other thread where the climate is more civil.

I answered your question over there.