Orthodox vs. Catholic Doctrinal Development

  • Thread starter Thread starter Religio71
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Religio71

Guest
One of the main differences I’ve noticed between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches is how we view doctrinal development, and what constitutes “valid” development.

How do you see doctrinal development? Are the Papal doctrines (infallibility and supremacy) examples of that development? Must there be evidence of a doctrine, even implicit evidence, for it to be called “development”?
 
Religio71 said:
One of the main differences I’ve noticed between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches is how we view doctrinal development, and what constitutes “valid” development.

How do you see doctrinal development? Are the Papal doctrines (infallibility and supremacy) examples of that development? Must there be evidence of a doctrine, even implicit evidence, for it to be called “development”?
Click to expand...
From the Orthodox perspective, whether one calls it doctrinal development, or doctrinal clarification, or doctrinal explication, there is indeed greater consciousness of what Christianity is all about. The Arian and monophysite controversies are examples of that. But in both examples, the Church as a whole decided on the issue. Papal universal jurisdiction and infallibility are “innovations” constructed not by the Church as a whole, but only by those communities in communion with the schismatic bishop of Rome.🙂
 
I find myself rather in the middle on this, but perhaps closer to the Orthodox position. A typical traditional Anglican, really.

I think that some of the Catholic doctrines, while fine ideas in some cases, do indeed go beyond what is implicit in tradition or scripture - they seem to be additions rather than development. As well, I think it often demands more than it ought to. Transubstantiation is a good example - while I personal hold it to be the best explanation and think it is an excellent theory, it is a theory on a divine mystery which is by it’s very nature above us, and beyond us. The early church did not have it, and the Orthodox still don’t accept it as doctrine, and it cannot be found implicitly in either tradition or scripture. Those things tell us clearly what happens, but not how.

On the other hand, I find the Orthodox to be somewhat too restrictive on this at times. I am not sure this has always been the case to the same degree it is now, however.
 
Religio71 said:
…

How do you see doctrinal development? Are the Papal doctrines (infallibility and supremacy) examples of that development? Must there be evidence of a doctrine, even implicit evidence, for it to be called “development”?
Click to expand...
When you’re not going to change anything, nobody has to be infallible.
 
bpbasilphx said:
When you’re not going to change anything, nobody has to be infallible.
Click to expand...
But when a teaching is going to be clarified, there’d better well be some kind of infallibility, and Conciliar Infallibility isn’t always enough (as in the case of Chalcedon).

Peace and God bless!
 
Orthodox Churches consider the definition of doctrines as doctrinal developments.🤷
 
Ghosty said:
But when a teaching is going to be clarified, there’d better well be some kind of infallibility, and Conciliar Infallibility isn’t always enough (as in the case of Chalcedon).

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...
So why didn’t the Pope use this infallibility back then? He must have just been too shy I guess. :rolleyes:
 
trophybearer said:
So why didn’t the Pope use this infallibility back then? He must have just been too shy I guess. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Papal Infallibility isn’t something that needs to be trotted out for every controversy, but every controversy is resolved with some relation to the Pope (including Conciliar decisions).

Papal Infallibility is the same Infallibility the Church as a whole possesses; Papal Infallibility is the Church’s Infallibility when the Pope speaks for the Church. The Church doesn’t always need the Pope to speak unilaterally, however.

Peace and God bless!
 
Ghosty said:
Papal Infallibility isn’t something that needs to be trotted out for every controversy, but every controversy is resolved with some relation to the Pope (including Conciliar decisions).

Papal Infallibility is the same Infallibility the Church as a whole possesses; Papal Infallibility is the Church’s Infallibility when the Pope speaks for the Church. The Church doesn’t always need the Pope to speak unilaterally, however.

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...
So then it was totally unnecessary to define. “When the Pope says what the whole Church has infallibly defined, he is infallible.” So when I state the belief of the whole Church I’m infallible too? How could the Pope be speaking for the Church if he speaks unilaterally? Every controversy is then also resolved in some relation the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Patriarch of Moscow and on and on… do they speak infallibly at times as well?
 
trophybearer said:
So why didn’t the Pope use this infallibility back then? He must have just been too shy I guess. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
"The apostles and elders met to consider this question. After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” (Acts 15:6-11 NIV)

Pope Clement I (c. 96AD): “The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God sojourning at Corinth… If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger” (Letter to the Corinthians, 1,59)
 
trophybearer said:
So then it was totally unnecessary to define. “When the Pope says what the whole Church has infallibly defined, he is infallible.” So when I state the belief of the whole Church I’m infallible too? How could the Pope be speaking for the Church if he speaks unilaterally? Every controversy is then also resolved in some relation the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Patriarch of Moscow and on and on… do they speak infallibly at times as well?
Click to expand...
I didn’t say that the Pope repeats what the Church has already decided, I said he speaks with the same infallibility of the Church.

Every controversy has not been resolved in relation to Constantinople or Moscow; Constantinople has been in heresy, and decided against at Ecumenical Council, and Moscow didn’t even exist for the united Ecumenical Councils (neither did Constantinople for the First Council, for that matter, and Jerusalem wasn’t a Patriarchate at the time, but a suffragen diocese). All Ecumenical Councils have been in Communion with Rome, which can’t be said of any other Patriarchate.

Jerusalem became a Patriarchate in 451, the same time that Alexandria and Antioch were ruled against by the Council of Chalcedon.

So yeah, every Council has had a relation to Rome, which can not be said of any other Patriarch. 🙂

Peace and God bless!
 
Mickey said:
That is because Rome was Orthodox for the first seven! 😃
Click to expand...
Even taking that view, it’s inarguable that it was Rome, and no other Patriarchate, that held the unique role of being a center-point of Orthodoxy and Conciliar decisions in the Early Church, and no other Patriarchate has held that place since.

Peace and God bless!
 
Ghosty said:
Even taking that view, it’s inarguable that it was Rome, and no other Patriarchate, that held the unique role of being a center-point of Orthodoxy and Conciliar decisions in the Early Church, and no other Patriarchate has held that place since.
Click to expand...
Oh boy. This has been debated infinitely. Yes. Orthodox Rome was the capital of Christianity. You will say that the Pope of Rome has always held supremacy/infallibility and the Orthodox will always say that the Pope of Rome was never seen as supreme/infallible until the “doctrine” was spelled out and applied retroactively (in the 19th century). I can provide reels of Church Father quotes for my stance and you will attempt to counter.

Sigh. 🤷
 
Mickey said:
Oh boy. This has been debated infinitely. Yes. Orthodox Rome was the capital of Christianity. You will say that the Pope of Rome has always held supremacy/infallibility and the Orthodox will always say that the Pope of Rome was never seen as supreme/infallible until the “doctrine” was spelled out and applied retroactively (in the 19th century). I can provide reels of Church Father quotes for my stance and you will attempt to counter.

Sigh. 🤷
Click to expand...
I wasn’t speaking of Papal Infallibility, I was speaking infallibility in general, and Conciliar infallibility in particular. In fact, I was specifically saying that Papal Infallibility WASN’T invoked in the first millenium. You’re arguing in the wrong debate. :o

The point is simply that when a matter must be cleared up, there must be infallibility in clearing it up, and pure conciliarity has never been the operating procedure for Church infallibility (this is not saying anything about unilateral Papal Infallibility, which I didn’t bring up, but rather Trophybearer did).

Peace and God bless!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top