Understanding what Orthodox consider innovation

[joemccarron]

What innovation is ok and what is not?

I vaguely remember reading Paul refers to the church as having Apostles, Prophets, and people who can speak in tongues etc. He was basically explaining that we as Christians might look a bit nutty to outsiders if we keep having competitions in who can speak in tongues better. But he nonetheless seemed to list the positions in the church as they existed then and now these positions no longer exist.

There are other examples as well. At first there were 3 patriarchs Rome, Antioch and Alexandria. And then the orthodox added Constantinople and Jerusalem.

Anyways it seems the orthodox accept some innovations/additions but then decide that at some point there can be no other additions. What is that point and why?

Is it after the schism because the Bishop of Rome could/would no longer attend councils? Also on the flip side the councils that the CC had after the schism were invalid because it did not have the other bishops?

This would seem to make sense but would also seem to suggest that if the churches were again unified there could be some additions to the teachings. Anyway, what is the view?

Thanks

 

[GaryTaylor]

What innovation is ok and what is not?

I vaguely remember reading Paul refers to the church as having Apostles, Prophets, and people who can speak in tongues etc. He was basically explaining that we as Christians might look a bit nutty to outsiders if we keep having competitions in who can speak in tongues better. But he nonetheless seemed to list the positions in the church as they existed then and now these positions no longer exist.

There are other examples as well. At first there were 3 patriarchs Rome, Antioch and Alexandria. And then the orthodox added Constantinople and Jerusalem.

Anyways it seems the orthodox accept some innovations/additions but then decide that at some point there can be no other additions. What is that point and why?

Is it after the schism because the Bishop of Rome could/would no longer attend councils? Also on the flip side the councils that the CC had after the schism were invalid because it did not have the other bishops?

This would seem to make sense but would also seem to suggest that if the churches were again unified there could be some additions to the teachings. Anyway, what is the view?

Thanks

The CC has had 21 councils to date and doesn’t need to othodox church to do so. They choose to remain outside the Body of Christ. Of course there is much disagreement on this.

As far as Paul and speaking in tongues this is a misconception. Paul was referring to all speaking in one tongue understandable to all.

On the contrary speaking in tongues is believed to open the door for evil. Theres much written on this. " He came to free us from captivity" is one biography about the war of good and evil which speaks on this. just off the top on my head.

God Bless, GT.

The first 7 ecumencial councils are the concern, all should be on the same page here. The 8th is under review and the road which the CC decide to seperate itself from the res of Christianity. Even here the issues are not so great of the world and whats happening spiritually in the EO and CC today.

Nor sure is this answers your question bro?

 

[joemccarron]

First Corinthians 12:28 may not have been the best example. I interpreted it to mean he was explaining there are these different sorts of people in the church almost as different church positions but that seems debatable from the text.

“25 But God has so constructed the body as to give greater honor to a part that is without it, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the parts may have the same concern for one another.
26 If (one) part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all the parts share its joy.
27 Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it.
28 Some people God has designated in the church to be, first, apostles; 6 second, prophets; third, teachers; then, mighty deeds; then, gifts of healing, assistance, administration, and varieties of tongues.
29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work mighty deeds?
30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?
31 Strive eagerly for the greatest spiritual gifts.”

usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians12.htm

 

[Hesychios]

What innovation is ok and what is not?

… At first there were 3 patriarchs Rome, Antioch and Alexandria. And then the orthodox added Constantinople and Jerusalem.

Anyways it seems the orthodox accept some innovations/additions but then decide that at some point there can be no other additions. What is that point and why? …

I assume that you know the difference between doctrine and discipline. The Roman Catholic church pretty clearly understands that. Disciplines are very maleable, although one wouldn’t expect to see changes that are not necessary.

Otherwise, historically the theological innovators were normally the heretics, they actually drove the development. The church defined minimally and conservatively, as a way of pruning away at dangerous and false teachings. This was always done through the joint efforts of gathered bishops.

I think it would help to understand the difference between apophatic and cataphatic reasoning. Both are necessary, but the eastern church has always been far more apophatic than the Roman Catholic church ever was.

So with cataphatic reasoning, one typically builds up, one idea upon another, it seems (to me, at least) to raise expectations of “stay tuned - more to come” …

We have a religion that is a revelation of God from Jesus Christ through the Apostles, this knowledge saves people and always has. Orthodox don’t have any particular theory of an evolving understanding, such as somehow the each successive generation alive will know so much more than the previous. We just don’t know that to be a truism. There is no expectation of new beliefs, the age of revelation has closed.

We believe what we pray and we pray what we believe.

I suppose that this will not answer all your objections, and I doubt that I have explained it well, but it should at least illustrate our perspective to some extent.

 

[PeaceSerenity]

Just following up on Hesychios, I think there’s a difference between innovation of doctrine and practical adjustments. If more bishops/patriarchs were necessary in order to serve the growing number of believers, then I’m not quite sure what the objection is. Would you object to more churches being built as time past by as well, and more priests being ordained?