"Progressive Revelation" in Catholicism vs. (nothing) in Orthodoxy?

[dzheremi]

Forgive me for being a rush so that I cannot find the reference right now, but last night I came across a website Q & A on Orthodoxy and its relationship with Catholicism, and one of the points on which Orthodoxy apparently differed with Catholicism is that (it alleged) Catholicism views doctrine as “progressive”, whereas Orthodoxy does not. This site was written from an Orthodox perspective, so it went on to say that this distinguishes the heretical Catholic Church from the pure, whole Orthodox Church (it must be pure because they haven’t added any of those controversial “inventions” that Catholics have).

So…is this “progressive revelation” model an accurate charge against Catholicism, and if it is, is it not at the root of what the Orthodox call our “inventions” (aka everything they don’t agree with us on doctrinally: IC, Papal Infallibility, etc)? How is progressive revelation qualitatively different than just making it up as we go along?

Please, as to that last question: I am a proud Catholic, I had just never heard this particular charge before, and it is troubling me. I am not saying that anything is being made up, only that I could see how it might look that way to an Orthodox Christian.

What is a proper Catholic response to this point?

Thanks!

 

[Cluny]

As one wag put it, if you’re not going to change anything, who has to be infallible?

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Here’s a Catholic Answers tract on how the Catholic Church views this:

catholic.com/library/Can_Dogma_Develop.asp
Hold Fast to What You Were Taught:

…this closure to public revelation doesn’t mean there isn’t progress in the understanding of what has been entrusted to the Church…

Vatican II on development:

…It’s important to understand that the Church does not, indeed cannot, change the doctrines God has given it, nor can it “invent” new ones and add them to the deposit of faith that has been “once for all delivered to the saints.” New beliefs are not invented, but obscurities and misunderstandings regarding the deposit of faith are cleared up.

Vatican II explained, “The tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts, through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For, as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her” (Dei Verbum 8).

In other words, the Church has a progression in it’s understanding of revelation, not progressive revelation itself.

 

[dzheremi]

Thank you, Stylteralmaldo. That is more or less how this topic was explained to me when I asked about this in RCIA (without having heard the phrase “progressive revelation”, I had gotten impression from visits with the Orthodox that Catholicism went wrong when it began to “invent” things, though I didn’t really know what they meant by that beyond “we don’t agree with Catholics on the matter of X”). I just wonder if there isn’t more to it than that, because I do still find it hard to answer quips like the one that Cluny posted.

I think I’ll bring this up to my priest. Any further (name removed by moderator)ut is of course much appreciated.

 

[Hesychios]

…if you’re not going to change anything, who has to be infallible?

Precisely.

 

[NDfan]

Forgive me for being a rush so that I cannot find the reference right now, but last night I came across a website Q & A on Orthodoxy and its relationship with Catholicism, and one of the points on which Orthodoxy apparently differed with Catholicism is that (it alleged) Catholicism views doctrine as “progressive”, whereas Orthodoxy does not. This site was written from an Orthodox perspective, so it went on to say that this distinguishes the heretical Catholic Church from the pure, whole Orthodox Church (it must be pure because they haven’t added any of those controversial “inventions” that Catholics have).

So…is this “progressive revelation” model an accurate charge against Catholicism, and if it is, is it not at the root of what the Orthodox call our “inventions” (aka everything they don’t agree with us on doctrinally: IC, Papal Infallibility, etc)? How is progressive revelation qualitatively different than just making it up as we go along?

Please, as to that last question: I am a proud Catholic, I had just never heard this particular charge before, and it is troubling me. I am not saying that anything is being made up, only that I could see how it might look that way to an Orthodox Christian.

What is a proper Catholic response to this point?

Thanks!

This is an interesting question as I just did some research on this. The RCC during the council of Trent wrote doctrine surrounding the notion of continuous revelation. The question being does the church contain the word of GOD in scripture alone or scripture plus oral tradition. The council created language that stated the church contained both, partly in scripture and partly in oral tradition.

Apparently the initial draft met with some objections from the members of the council stating that having 2 sources destroys the sufficiency of scripture. The language was changed slightly but before the council ended war broke out and the issue was left open-ended without clarification. Today there is still debate within the RCC as to what the language really meant from Trent. Liberals say that it’s clear the council’s language meant scripture was the only source, but oral teaching/tradition could be used to help explain the meaning of scripture. Conservatives claim the opposite, that theologically speaking there can be 2 sources. Subsequent papal encyclicals suggest a dual source revelation of GOD’s word.

I believe this is the issue you are referring to. The Orthodox do not believe in constant revelation of GOD’s word and will not accept the notion that the pope has the ability to reveal new doctrinal revelations that do not have scripture as the source.

PEACE

 

[dzheremi]

Wait…I am getting stuck on terminology, but I must ask: New doctrinal revelations?

This seems to be something other than what the other poster quoted from Vatican II. As was explained to me in RCIA, what the Orthodox claim are “revelations” are actually clarifications in reaction to various heresies against the beliefs that the Church had always held, but had not needed to define previously in the absence of dissenting views (or at least dissenting views organized in such a way as to be a threat to the unity of the Church). So, as I understand it, any new doctrine is supposedly reactive, which is something different than progressive.

Is my understanding incorrect? It is possible/probable that I am not remembering correctly what was told to me, as I have not spent much time considering this type of question since my original period of discernment prior to coming into the Church.

And still it remains: If doctrine does not change, then what is the need for infallibility? I had always understood infallibility as being part and parcel of Jesus’ promise to Peter, that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. This outlook, combined with the very limited and specific set of circumstances under which Papal Infallability can be invoked, has made this doctrine much easier for me to swallow than perhaps it is for other converts from Protestantism. Right now…I am not sure that I am seeing things so clearly, or for that matter that I have ever understood this issue with appropriate intellectual depth.

I hate to admit it, but I’m pretty lost here, folks.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Wait…I am getting stuck on terminology, but I must ask: New doctrinal revelations?..

…I hate to admit it, but I’m pretty lost here, folks.

Okay. NDfan did not say that revealing new doctrinal revelations is the Roman Catholic position, he said the Orthodox will not accept that the pope has the ability to reveal new doctrinal revelations. That is an important distinction. Here’s the quote. Re-read it carefully:

NDfan:

…The Orthodox do not believe in constant revelation of GOD’s word and will not accept the notion that the pope has the ability to reveal new doctrinal revelations that do not have scripture as the source.

This is a good illustration as to why we need an infallible pope. We can all get lost in the language and over time language evolves and changes. We as human beings have changed over the course of 2000 years of Christian history. How we grasp the truths revealed by Christ to the Church has changed because our enviroment has changed.

For example, the torturous death that Christ experienced on the cross didn’t need to be explained in detail in Scripture because everyone who read the account understood exactly what being crucified meant. Yet, in today’s culture, we do not see this torture in the open as they did in Roman times. If someone explains what being crucified meant in Scripture, that doesn’t mean the truth of crucifixion is being added to, it merely means it is being explained in language that wasn’t needed previously but now perhaps some clarification of that truth may now be needed. I hope that made sense.

 

[excaliber]

Okay. NDfan did not say that revealing new doctrinal revelations is the Roman Catholic position, he said the Orthodox will not accept that the pope has the ability to reveal new doctrinal revelations. That is an important distinction. Here’s the quote. Re-read it carefully:

This is a good illustration as to why we need an infallible pope. We can all get lost in the language and over time language evolves and changes. We as human beings have changed over the course of 2000 years of Christian history. How we grasp the truths revealed by Christ to the Church has changed because our enviroment has changed.

For example, the torturous death that Christ experienced on the cross didn’t need to be explained in detail in Scripture because everyone who read the account understood exactly what being crucified meant. Yet, in today’s culture, we do not see this torture in the open as they did in Roman times. If someone explains what being crucified meant in Scripture, that doesn’t mean the truth of crucifixion is being added to, it merely means it is being explained in language that wasn’t needed previously but now perhaps some clarification of that truth may now be needed. I hope that made sense.

Both sides agree that the CHURCH
canot err, but disagree on HOW.

One side says that a council of bishops is what The Holy spirit uses.

The Other side says, one particular bishop is head of the Church and has more athority then
the rest of the bishops.

what is interesting is that if the Orthodox are correct…don’t we have 3 Catholic Churches!!!

Roman- Eastern - Oriental

All three have valid bishops.
All three have the real presence.

 

[dzheremi]

what is interesting is that if the Orthodox are correct…don’t we have 3 Catholic Churches!!!

Roman- Eastern - Oriental

All three have valid bishops.
All three have the real presence.

Well, don’t we? The Catholic Church recognizes all the Apostolic Churches as having valid sacraments, and all three profess their faith in the “One Holy and Apostolic Church”. Exactly what that means varies by Church, I suppose…hence threads like this one.

 

[ralphinal]

What puzzles me about the whole discussion is not the fact that the EO do not accept doctrinal development. In fact, they do to some extent. They just say that after a certain point, there is no more of it.

It just seems like it is presented as if the EO faith is EXACTLY like the Apostles left it. It is not.

 

[excaliber]

What puzzles me about the whole discussion is not the fact that the EO do not accept doctrinal development. In fact, they do to some extent. They just say that after a certain point, there is no more of it.

It just seems like it is presented as if the EO faith is EXACTLY like the Apostles left it. It is not.

Here is what gets more interesting
Both churches have traces of paganism in them, just look at a Christmas tree or an easter egg.
Now thess obviously did not come from an apostle. However both churches don’t think it a big deal.

HOWEVER when Christian churches deal with eachother, every little thing is a big deal and it becomes a reason for separation.

 

[ralphinal]

Here is what gets more interesting
Both churches have traces of paganism in them, just look at a Christmas tree or an easter egg.
Now thess obviously did not come from an apostle. However both churches don’t think it a big deal.

HOWEVER when Christian churches deal with eachother, every little thing is a big deal and it becomes a reason for separation.

Yes and no. Neither the Christmas Tree nor the easter egg is actually a part of the faith. It is a tradition associated with the faith by the faithful. At no point in time has anyone ever been told that they must decorate a tree or hide eggs.

You are correct that anythign can be an excuse to separate. I agree 100%. My point is that the EO accept the first few Councils, meaning that they do accept development of doctrine.

 

[excaliber]

Yes and no. Neither the Christmas Tree nor the easter egg is actually a part of the faith. It is a tradition associated with the faith by the faithful. At no point in time has anyone ever been told that they must decorate a tree or hide eggs.

You are correct that anythign can be an excuse to separate. I agree 100%. My point is that the EO accept the first few Councils, meaning that they do accept development of doctrine.

To be sure I would need to see an Orthodox catechism. The fact of the matter is that the pure church is in heaven, neither the Orthodox
or Roman Catholic churches are the MOST pure. When we are in heaven hopefully we will not need a Pope.

However The Roman Catholic - Eastern Orthodox - and Oriental Orthodox churches all can help us
get to heaven. Isn’t that the point?
Gettiing to heaven?

Who cares about councils, or changing the creed, or exactly which bishop has most athority’ when none of these things will matter in heaven.

 

[ralphinal]

To be sure I would need to see an Orthodox catechism. The fact of the matter is that the pure church is in heaven, neither the Orthodox
or Roman Catholic churches are the MOST pure. When we are in heaven hopefully we will not need a Pope.

However The Roman Catholic - Eastern Orthodox - and Oriental Orthodox churches all can help us
get to heaven. Isn’t that the point?
Gettiing to heaven?

Who cares about councils, or changing the creed, or exactly which bishop has most athority’ when none of these things will matter in heaven.

I would have to say because you would want to belong to the faith system that is less corrupted by human hands. It is logical

 

[dzheremi]

Yeah, I would have to agree that it seems intrinsically valuable to care about such things insofar as correct doctrine is necessary for valid sacraments, and as I understand it both the Orthodox and the Catholic traditions agree that the sacraments are necessary for salvation.

Of course, this line of thinking leads to another problem: The Catholic Church recognizes the validity of the Orthodox sacraments, but the Orthodox do not recognize the validity of the Catholic sacraments. Doesn’t this mean that if getting into heaven is “the point” (I disagree with this, but perhaps that is for another thread), then one would theoretically be safer (for lack of a better way to put it) by being Orthodox than by being Catholic? After all, we are looking at validity in one Apostolic tradition versus validity in both Apostolic traditions.

 

[ralphinal]

Yeah, I would have to agree that it seems intrinsically valuable to care about such things insofar as correct doctrine is necessary for valid sacraments, and as I understand it both the Orthodox and the Catholic traditions agree that the sacraments are necessary for salvation.

Of course, this line of thinking leads to another problem: The Catholic Church recognizes the validity of the Orthodox sacraments, but the Orthodox do not recognize the validity of the Catholic sacraments. Doesn’t this mean that if getting into heaven is “the point” (I disagree with this, but perhaps that is for another thread), then one would theoretically be safer (for lack of a better way to put it) by being Orthodox than by being Catholic? After all, we are looking at validity in one Apostolic tradition versus validity in both Apostolic traditions.

Maybe not. The Catholic position may be the correct one, in which case they are saying that though there is error, it is not fatal. If the Catholic position is correct, then the EO are proclaiming virture to be vice, thuse putting them into a dangerous position

 

[dzheremi]

That is true and a very good point to remember. Thanks, Ralphinal.

 

[ralphinal]

That is true and a very good point to remember. Thanks, Ralphinal.

Now, the EO counter to that would be that it is not a judgement on their part but something that is the conclusion drawn from the fact that in abandoning the Apostolic Traditions, the Catholics have made their sacraments invalid. There are two sides to everything.

Of the whole discussion, I am still hung up on the fact that the EO HAVE had doctrine develop. It is not like they deny all councils, so their claim is slightly false.

 

[Hesychios]

What puzzles me about the whole discussion is not the fact that the EO do not accept doctrinal development. In fact, they do to some extent. They just say that after a certain point, there is no more of it.

It just seems like it is presented as if the EO faith is EXACTLY like the Apostles left it. It is not.

Hello Ralph,

I will charitably as possible try to explain why you are misreading the OE position.

In the main, the early church (and the East to this day) uses apophatic reasoning, and did so during the seven Councils. The bishops of the church were not the ones engaging in doctrinal development, the heretics were.

The Councils did their best to determine if these ideas were taught in their local churches in prior times, and judiciously pruned away and condemned what they were convinced was novel teaching. *This was not a process of development, but a cleaning up and trimming away of errors.
*
Normally these errors were mixed in with the received Truth in the affected congregations. Not everything a heretic believed and taught was necessarily in error. The people just piled on the errors with what they already knew to be true.

**Now how was it that the Fathers could know?

**For the most part, what the orthodox Christians believed was already taught in the liturgy, in the many hymns and prayers of the liturgical cycle.

As an example, this is what failed Arius eventually, because in the liturgy taught to him were prayers to the Real Presence. Although he used his intellect and scholarship to decide that Jesus Christ was not divine the received liturgy in Egypt, Syria and elsewhere said otherwise.

The prayers and hymns of the liturgy are our witness that these beliefs were not developments, but ancient understandings.

The Councils did their work removing the rubbish, they were not called to craft new doctrines and search for rationale to believe them (a cataphatic approach).

In the early church the Councils condemned those who introduced errors. In the modern Latin church the people who cannot believe the new ideas are the ones condemned. Two entirely different kettle of fish.