An apparently reasonable question, but I say if none are needed none are gathered. It is not a “sign” of anything. It’s not like rotating one’s tires.
Hmmm! It certainly would seem to any observer that the entire filioque issue was ripe for a council - which actually did take place both at Lyons and Florence. The rejection of same post-council (not to mention the appointment of Scholarious to the patriarchal throne by the Turks for his support of rejecting Florence) was an innovation in Orthodoxy as much as anything. To this day Orthodoxy has no consistent means of determining which councils were, or were not valid ecumenical councils. I suppose this level of voluntarism is satisfactory to you.
The assumption seems to be from the Latin side that change in theology is good. From the Orthodox side this cannot be assumed.
I would say rather that in a living church theological inquiry continues in much the same manner as it did in the early Church - which can lead to error that needs correction. A society unchanged due to political pressure such as Islamic invasion, e.g., doesn’t lend itself to any sort of theological inquiry such as was the glory of the ancient Church - the east in particular. To that extent change is not good so much as a by-product of non-persecution and the ability to consider matters in something other than a bunker mentality.
Much of the justification for development of doctrine rings hollow. The driving force for change in doctine in the first millennium church was the heretics. The Councils were engaged in “defining” or in other words, limiting, the expansive heretical theology. Frankly, if heretics and gnostics had not advocated the things they did we would not have formalized as much as we had, it would have been unnecssary…
A bizarre understanding of what happened, indeed. Actually the councils made very clear statements of positive fact. True they battled “heresy” - but it wasn’t “heresy” until them. The matters were unclear. Truth is always truth - it just often is we don’t always know what Truth is. To say otherwise is to invent a new Greek Myth.
Our creed is a strong example of that, carefully crafted to eliminate unnacceptable novelties. The idea that doctrine must be able to develop to serve new generations is not a given rule, it is a given excuse.
Your very statement belies a gross misunderstanding of development of doctrine. Doctrine is indeed defined in response to theological inquiry - some of which may indeed lead to heresy. Doctrine, it’s true, does not develop for its own sake. It’s a response. To claim that there has been nothing in the years since the 7th council requiring response by the east denotes either a bunker mentality - there is an enemy (say Islam or the West) - or a failure of progress culturally.
One way to see it is that doctrinal developments are touted as clarifying theology for the new ages and cultures. The fact is those cultures and times continue to change but it is never admissable that a doctrine mandated in one age for it’s particular circumstances is no longer valid, it cannot be retracted later no matter what the culture.
Truth is admittedly Truth. But no one in Catholicism ever suggested that doctrine changes. Mary is Jesus’s mother - does that make her Mother of God? Ephesus says yes. Peter is the rock given the keys - is he infallible? The Church say yes. It’s always there, though perhaps not clearly understood as such.
Nothing is ever retracted, it is only ever added upon, and often for the wrong reasons or by innapropriate methods.
Councils strike me as appropriate along with Papal decrees. How can the Orthodox tell? 4 synods and several Bishops said in 1854 there were 8 ecumenical councils, yet many orthodox will claim only 7. No matter how you look at that either you are not accepting one - or are rejecting one.
Anyone who knows Orthodoxy knows it is a living vibrant church, not “ossified” or “calcified” as I so often read here by Orthodox bashers.
Not bashers at all. These accusation arise only after the orthodox proselytes on these boards issue the clarion call that there has been no change in Orthodoxy - as if that alone is a virtue without bounds. Pointing out the petrification aspects - death, sclerosis, etc., merely highlights the downside of stasis. But some here don’t want to consider that stasis has a downside perhaps because of personal choices…
It is truly a living Body of Christ, and it’s theology and praxis are very stable. I think that is something to be admired.
Naturally since you are Orthodox. And, put as you just did - who can disagree. Orthodoxy has much to recommend it. It also has issues, such as the ethnic thing, an element of voluntarism and lack or precision that at times makes it at one time a puff of smoke and other times a whitened corpse. Yet, it does persevere.
Since battling the gnostics and the Arians no new significant errors have arisien from the eastern Orthodox churches, and the “lack” of a Papacy has not left us vulnarable them.
Whether one puts hesychasm in that fray we can leave to another day. Rejection of the filioque, IC and leaving the church by rejection of Florence are certainly significant. But given the history post 800 of Islam and then the Turks, not surprising.
The rhetorical question is…if a Catholic through no fault of his own, knew only the doctrines taught by Holy Orthodoxy, would he lose his salvation? I think the answer is a definite no. Any Christian who knew only the doctine of Holy Orthodoxy and acted upon that knowledge would have no less a possibility of salvation than any other Catholic. The church teaches as much Truth today as it did in 1053AD, no less and no more, and it is an instrument of salvation.
A red herring since the same answer applies to all people under Catholic doctrine - Orthodox or not.
The Truths are eternal, and change neither for time nor place.
Michael
