Doctrinal Development

[Nine_Two]

"I had someone once explain a big difference between the East and the West in these terms

The East (Orthodox) are comfortable living the Mystery of the Incarnation.
The West (Catholic) needs to deliniate every bit of this and that of the Mystery…"

This you are talking about? This is fallible, hear-say, from an unknown, I don’t see any merit to the proposition. Yup, pretty much dismissed it without second thought.

I don’t see where one can …

1.describe something: to describe or explain something in detail
2.draw something: to sketch or draw something in outline
3.portray something visually: to represent something visually using something such as a chart or graph

…in regards to the Incarnation, without “living the mystery” to coin the phrase.

To me it sounded like the frustration of reading and comprehending genius. I agree and sympathize, its easier said than done. But the point is, well, just plain wrong.

Ok, it seems the word “with” was left out of that description of the East. The East is more comfortable living with the mystery…

I’m not understanding this hostility over someone’s opinions. I probably shouldn’t have said anything to begin with. Sorry.

 

[jimmy]

First was the “someone” you spoke to infallible. and if not why should this even be worth the time of day?

How do we apply the above to this fellow?

Why do we even discuss anything if infallibility is your basis for trusting the accuracy of what a person says? With your logic, the pope may be infallible but everyone in between you and him, including yourself is a lier and can’t be trusted. You can’t even trust yourself to understand the infallible proclamations of the pope because you are fallible. So because of infallibility, knowledge is impossible for us.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Why do we even discuss

Need I repeat myself?

1]This is fallible,

2] hear-say,

3] from an unknown,

4 ]I don’t see any merit to the proposition.

5] Yup, pretty much dismissed it without second thought.

If you believe the point in question has merit, then by all means defend away.

 

[jimmy]

Need I repeat myself?

1]This is fallible,

2] hear-say,

3] from an unknown,

4 ]I don’t see any merit to the proposition.

5] Yup, pretty much dismissed it without second thought.

If you believe the point in question has merit, then by all means defend away.

Which is a poor argument. The OP was looking for an actual argument. Instead you spread agnosticism.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Which is a poor argument, you spread agnosticism.

your basis your logic, you and him, you can’t even .

I’m not understanding this hostility over someone’s opiinion.

Again, in so many ways, the Orthodox is comfortable with the Mystery of God without having to deliniate every freaking thing which so often leads to ego …

Do you plan on contributing or is your plan to continue to attack me, or do you actually have something to contribute?

Pretty predicable. As were the initial insults to Rome thus those of us in the Church. For those who have such issues then you should have no problem elaborating and making your point.

I responded to her points above. Apparently you would rather talk about me? Tell me how I feel, what I think, and what you think of me?

Here’s the last response and so forth.

"The Dormition/Assumption is dated based on information existing and on tradition.

The Assumption concludes that there is no eyewitness to the events and as your friend stated a lack of historical evidence. Nevertheless it acknowledges the tradition which is the same as the Dormition. Though we [Catholic Church] dosen’t say Mary had to die, when or where, then was resurrected on the third day since we do not know anyone who was there to validate. What was she guilty of?

Thus, Assumed body “and” soul, is the dogma … “not soul then body” . It cannot be proven this dogma is not true. Very much on the contrary. One would have to establish an argument that Mary wasn’t perfectly graced and wasn’t in communion with the Lord. I fail to see how any intellect can do that following the ecumenical councils and scripture thus the theological implications.

That’s why the CC states, assumed “body and soul”. Because there was no eye witness who documented otherwise which we can verify. Its “most fitting” is what the Assumption states in acknowledgement of the documentation of the Dormition and early documented history.

Thus no myth just sound theological arguments"

The rest is above.

Or is this where you tell me how “uncharitable I am” and how your not talking to me no-more. Which translates to your own frustration of defending your own position.

How about we get back to the OP, or here …

We do accept the development of non-faith related practices, however. Such as hesychism, .

 

[GaryTaylor]

Doctrinal development of the EO…

[John Savvas Romanides (2 March 1927, Piraeus – 1 November 2001, Athens) ]

orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/452/romanides-holy-baptism/

And commented on by?

 

[Nine_Two]

Well I’m out of this thread. You’re welcome to ascribe it to an inability to answer your arguments Gary, but I really have no idea what you’re arguing for or against and I don’t want to add you to my ignore list, I’ll wait to engage you on a topic that doesn’t get you so wound up.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The concerned effort to inject reasonable dialog into a downward spiraling post was a mistake upon my part. I should have known better.

I still never heard about the developed doctrine of John Savvas Romanides (2 March 1927, Piraeus – 1 November 2001, Athens) Is this a wide following with his theory on Baptism?

 

[Marie5890]

The OP’s original question was pretty much answered by Nine_Two in post #10 ( though to be fair, the OP’s question was more directed at Eastern Catholics )

It’s intriguing to view the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics. So similar in so many ways minus view on the papacy…

Thanks for taking the time to answer Nine_Two.

God Bless…

 

[GaryTaylor]

OP - “How do the Eastern Orthodox differ with Catholicism regarding doctrinal development?”

orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/452/romanides-holy-baptism/

Difference being this one really is a myth. Nothing similar there, I take myth as acceptable language here since it was indeed introduced and accepted, wrongly I might add in regards to the Assumption?

“Fr. John Romanides makes the astonishing claim that “Baptism… is not a negative forgiveness of guilt inherited as a consequence of the sin of Adam.”

I can’t imagine where this developed from, certainly not history. Of what profit is reading this. His hatred of the West it appears clouded his judgment. The Creed has been recited since antiquity.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I was recently reading St. John of Damascus (whom both Catholics and Orthodox recognize as a saint), “An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith”, he spends the first several chapters speaking of how God is unknowable and we just have to accept it. I found it interesting that in over 1200 years his explanation is still the best description of God out there.

/QUOTE]

Again, in so many ways, the Orthodox is comfortable with the Mystery of God without having to deliniate every freaking thing which so often leads to ego

Marie5890, St. John of Damascus is a Saint in both Church’s. The existence of God is on-going in philosophy and Christian theology. Its an on-going example of defined doctrine. This isn’t going to stop. That doesn’t distract from the Saints.

In other words while its fine to believe and through blind faith, it doesn’t answer why you believe what you believe thus further elaboration. This is no different than with the essence/energies theology of the East.

Thus I have no idea of what the ego comment means exactly?

As far as your friend, he is not here, which is why I asked if he was at least main-line protestant. Its impossible to gauge his understanding of the proposed questions, which seem to be more yours and tainted with comments of. ego, myth and misunderstanding that there really is infallible teaching in the Church and always has existed. Nevertheless when we talk of what another said with no understanding we cannot question the individual nor judge the demeanor and credibility of the alleged person and comprehension of the ideas proposed. Its a straw man by definition and especially at this point.