Where do the developments in doctrine come from?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Searcher92
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Let me provide an example.

Catholic theology commends prayer for the dead, but only if they are in Purgatory. (correct me if I’m wrong on this point) What is the source of this doctrine?

Perhaps I missed something, but there is no early Christian Tradition specifying this, or any Bible verse. Presumably, it’s a development. Lots of things surrounding Purgatory are developments.

Is it a logical deduction from other doctrines? If so, which ones?
 
Let me provide an example.

Catholic theology commends prayer for the dead, but only if they are in Purgatory. (correct me if I’m wrong on this point) What is the source of this doctrine?

Perhaps I missed something, but there is no early Christian Tradition specifying this, or any Bible verse. Presumably, it’s a development. Lots of things surrounding Purgatory are developments.

Is it a logical deduction from other doctrines? If so, which ones?
Prayer for the dead is a biblical teaching (from one of the books of Maccabees that Catholics and Orthodox share but Protestants reject).

But it is unnecessary to pray for a soul in Heaven, and useless to pray for a soul in Hell.

Thus, some kind of intermediate state must exist in which prayer for the dead makes sense. Catholics have developed that into the idea of Purgatory. Orthodox have gone in different directions, but some do acknowledge that such a state must exist, though they don’t use the same name or imagery.

That is an example of how a seemingly completely new doctrine can develop by reasoning from already established doctrine.

Usagi
 
Yes, but if Papal Infallibility is a correct dogma, that pretty much sinks the EO boat (if only because the Pope has Infallibly supported the Immaculate Conception). And if Papal Infallibility is an incorrect dogma, then the Catholic church is way, way off the reservation.
Very true. But the evidence of the ECF’s strongly points to the former.
Primacy, or universal jurisdiction? Can you provide a source for the idea that they accepted his universal jurisdiction?
I’ve read quotes from EO patriarchs and theologians which admit that their acceptance of the councils of Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and II Constantinople implicitly and of themselves admit the acceptance of both. That’s not held by EO of course, but I think that those who do admit are the honest ones IMO.
There weren’t many Protestants in the Eastern Orthodox countries. It doesn’t seem like it was as big a problem for them, as it was for Rome.
Plus, most of the issues Protestants raised was either blatantly wrong (i.e. Sola Scriptura), or in opposition to Catholic-only doctrines (i.e. Purgatory).
Doesn’t matter that protestantism was only a western problem. If the EO wanted to establish themselves as a universal authority on the true Christian Faith, that was a perfect opportunity, because from the time of the 95 theses(1517)to the beginning of theCouncil of Trent(1545), we’re talking almost thirty years, yet the EO patriarchs did nothing to respond to it.

Maybe it was just intellectual complacency, or maybe it was the providence of God and the working of the Holy Spirit.

I know what I concluded and now believe, but I’ll leave that up to you.
 
Several saints, Augustine, John Chrystosom, Gregory of Nanziansus, Gregory the Great, all spoke of Purgatory and the removal of minor faults due to concupiscience after death.
 
it is unnecessary to pray for a soul in Heaven
Why? Is this a doctrine? What is the source of it? Or is it a logical deduction from some other doctrine?
Orthodox have gone in different directions, but some do acknowledge that such a state must exist, though they don’t use the same name or imagery.
They don’t limit prayer for the dead to those in Purgatory. They pray for everyone.

When I said
Perhaps I missed something, but there is no early Christian Tradition specifying this, or any Bible verse. Presumably, it’s a development. Lots of things surrounding Purgatory are developments.
I was talking about limiting prayer for the dead, to those in Purgatory. Not prayer for the dead, in general. Bad phrasing on my part
 
I’ve read quotes from EO patriarchs and theologians which admit that their acceptance of the councils of Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and II Constantinople implicitly and of themselves admit the acceptance of both.
Can you cite any?

Also, most Orthodox accept Papal Primacy (but not Supremacy). If the schism ended tomorrow, the Orthodox would consider Pope Francis the head of the Christian faith, not the Patriarch of Constantinople. (Or so they claim)
If the EO wanted to establish themselves as a universal authority on the true Christian Faith
But they don’t consider themselves the universal authority, at least in the same sense the Catholic Church does. They regard the Pope as the proper (albeit schismatic) Patriarch of the West. Western Europe isn’t their jurisdiction, it’s the Pope’s jurisdiction.
 
Let me provide an example.

Catholic theology commends prayer for the dead, but only if they are in Purgatory. (correct me if I’m wrong on this point) What is the source of this doctrine?

Perhaps I missed something, but there is no early Christian Tradition specifying this, or any Bible verse. Presumably, it’s a development. Lots of things surrounding Purgatory are developments.

Is it a logical deduction from other doctrines? If so, which ones?
Purgatory has jewish roots. I do not think a church council has ever been called to define purgatory, the same as was needed for the Trinity, Divinity of Christ…and others.

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0091.html
 
Why? Is this a doctrine? What is the source of it? Or is it a logical deduction from some other doctrine?
it’s a logical deduction. Prayer is asking God for something. If a soul is in heaven what would you ask God to do for them?

If a soul is in hell, prayer would have no effect since their fate has been determined.
They don’t limit prayer for the dead to those in Purgatory. They pray for everyone.
We pray for the living and the souls in Purgatory. We pray for mercy for the souls in purgatory that their ‘purging’ be quick and easy. They will attain heaven but not before being purged of all imperfections since nothing imperfect can enter heaven. There’s scripture for that.

As to the choice between Orthodox and Catholic I had the same question. It was answered for me when I read the Bible. Jesus is a King, specifically a Jewish King. As the Old Testament shows when the King left his Kingdom he put a chief steward in charge. As a sign of his authority the King gave the keys to the kingdom to the Chief Steward. In the New Testament Jesus gave keys to Peter. Peter, and his successors are the Chief Steward of Jesus’s Kingdom on earth. Where Peter is, there is the Church that Jesus founded.
 
But all higher-level math is based on simple math, and only simple math. Calculus is just simple math, used to do more complex things. You can prove the fundamental theorem of Calculus using simple math.

This isn’t really an example of new information being developed to understand complex math. It’s just more complex structures based on the old information - and only using the old information.

Maybe I’m just fundamentally misunderstanding the concept of development. Is new information being introduced? Or is the doctrine that “Purgatory cleanses you of venial sin” simply a logical deduction from Apostolic Tradition and the Bible? (and no sources except Apostolic Tradition/Bible)

But in that case, I simply had an incomplete understanding of the book, and used something the author had written to find a fuller understanding. So, the doctrine that “Purgatory cleanses you of Venial sin” would have been taught by the Apostles, and the Church didn’t notice it until later.

That doesn’t seem consistent with the concept of development Wikipedia had (I’ve read similar definitions on Catholic sites). If I misunderstand the concept, please refer me to a thread or website that would give me a better understanding.
That is the entire point I’m trying to make

everything is founded on the one truth. Our knowledge of that truth is incomplete and will always be incomplete. AS we grow we know more about the one truth. It isn’t about finding new ideas it is uncovering new parts of the truth.
 
Can you cite any?

Also, most Orthodox accept Papal Primacy (but not Supremacy). If the schism ended tomorrow, the Orthodox would consider Pope Francis the head of the Christian faith, not the Patriarch of Constantinople. (Or so they claim)

But they don’t consider themselves the universal authority, at least in the same sense the Catholic Church does. They regard the Pope as the proper (albeit schismatic) Patriarch of the West. Western Europe isn’t their jurisdiction, it’s the Pope’s jurisdiction.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1355

Instead of repeating all the known arguments pro and contra, let us try the historical method and examine the position which the Byzantine Church took on this problem from earliest times on up to the period when the estrangement between the Eastern and Western parts of mediaeval Christianity became apparent and began to envenom the atmosphere in which the Churches had to live.
 
it’s a logical deduction. Prayer is asking God for something. If a soul is in heaven what would you ask God to do for them?
I could think of a few things, but it would be speculation. Maybe that they’ll remember something that happened on earth? That they’ll receive more heavenly blessings?

Regardless, just because I can’t think of a reasonable thing to pray for, doesn’t mean it’s not possible.
As to the choice between Orthodox and Catholic I had the same question. It was answered for me when I read the Bible. Jesus is a King, specifically a Jewish King. As the Old Testament shows when the King left his Kingdom he put a chief steward in charge. As a sign of his authority the King gave the keys to the kingdom to the Chief Steward. In the New Testament Jesus gave keys to Peter. Peter, and his successors are the Chief Steward of Jesus’s Kingdom on earth. Where Peter is, there is the Church that Jesus founded.
No offense, but that’s pretty weak. Israel didn’t even have a king during the Judges period, and God objected to them making someone King. He wanted to rule them, not some earthly ruler. You could make a similar analogy.
 
It isn’t about finding new ideas it is uncovering new parts of the truth.
I’m having difficulty seeing Catholic development as just “uncovering new parts of the truth”. Take Papal Infallibility. It doesn’t explicitly appear until the medieval period. So it must have existed implicitly prior to that. (or it didn’t exist at all, and the Catholic Church is in trouble)

What in Tradition or Scripture implies that the Pope is infallible (in certain circumstances)? I see references to the leadership of the Pope (i.e. “on this rock I will build my church”). I see references to Papal authority (i.e. Pope arbitrates disputes among bishops).

Is the implication of Papal Infallibility really, really subtle? Am I looking at the wrong sources? What sources should I look at?
 
I’m having difficulty seeing Catholic development as just “uncovering new parts of the truth”. Take Papal Infallibility. It doesn’t explicitly appear until the medieval period. So it must have existed implicitly prior to that. (or it didn’t exist at all, and the Catholic Church is in trouble)

What in Tradition or Scripture implies that the Pope is infallible (in certain circumstances)? I see references to the leadership of the Pope (i.e. “on this rock I will build my church”). I see references to Papal authority (i.e. Pope arbitrates disputes among bishops).

Is the implication of Papal Infallibility really, really subtle? Am I looking at the wrong sources? What sources should I look at?
sometimes it is difficult to make connections to all of these things I understand. I think just by logical reasoning we know that anything we find out about truth is just an uncovering of a deeper truth and finding more about the truth.

We believe God is truth and he is the ultimate truth.
God reveled the truth through his Son, who took on a human nature in Christ.
Through Christ we have a deeper access to the one truth than ever before
Through the scriptures and tradition God reveled to us everything he ever wanted to say to us. It is through the lens of tradition and the Church that we come to understand this truth.
so even when we find something for the first time thousands of years after Christ we are still finding things in that one truth.

So what I’m trying to get at is that it may take us thousands of years to figure out one truth and it may appear that somethings never came from the early Church. All truthful statements are statements founded on the one truth of God. Even science philosophy, and the others are just studying the one truth of God.

I’m hoping we can help you out in this quest. I’ll I’m trying to point out is that just because something may have not arose till long after the time of Christ doesn’t mean it is wrong.

Again the truth is so large that even given 20,000 years we will never on cover everything and every day we are finding new things that we never knew before.

Development of doctrine is an ever growing and deeming of our understanding of the one truth.
 
I’m trying to point out is that just because something may have not arose till long after the time of Christ doesn’t mean it is wrong.
Agreed. However, if doctrine actually developed in the way Catholics claim it does, I’d expect something very different.

First, the basic doctrines would be outlined by the Apostles. Second, the basic doctrines would be expanded by the post-Apostolic church. Third, more complex doctrines would be expanded by the post-post-Apostolic church. Over time, development would cover all major issues, and only the extremely complex,and arcane issues would still be in development.

But that’s not how it looks at all. It seems to go in spurts - Papal Infallibility appears in the middle ages, and shortly becomes a majority opinion in the Church. By 1000 AD, I’d expect all major issues to have been resolved, and only minor issues left.

Why did nobody notice it until the middle ages?
 
They don’t limit prayer for the dead to those in Purgatory. They pray for everyone.
Really? They pray for the Theotokos and the other saints? Or are you just making that distinction because they don’t actually use the word “Purgatory”?

Catholics, also, pray for all the dead because we cannot know their fate, but it only seems likely to make a real difference for those in Purgatory.

Usagi
 
Is the implication of Papal Infallibility really, really subtle? Am I looking at the wrong sources? What sources should I look at?
Papal infallibility is a derivative of the infallibility of the Magisterium as a whole. Orthodox and Catholics alike, as far as I know, believe that the bishops as a body (such as in the great Councils) are able to make doctrinal and moral decisions that bind all the faithful, and that the Holy Spirit does not permit them to be wrong in so deciding.

Papal infallibility is an extension of that older principle to the specific office of the Papacy.

Usagi
 
Can you cite any?
Well, let me put it this way. At I Constantinople the Creed was modified(it’s the Creed we say today at every Mass, called the Nicene-Constantinopolan Creed).

No Western bishops were present at the this Council.

Yet the Creed was still ratified by the Pope and accepted in the west.

But even so, if that’s not enough, here’s an excerpt from an Orthodox bishop:
“When before non-Orthodox we sometimes appear divided in theological dialogues and elsewhere; when we are unable to proceed to the realization of the long-heralded Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church; when we lack a unified voice on contemporary issues and, instead, convoke bilateral dialogues with non-Orthodox on these issues; when we fail to constitute a single Orthodox Church in the so-called Diaspora in accordance with the ecclesiological and canonical principles of our Church; how can we avoid the image of division in Orthodoxy, especially on the basis of non-theological, secular criteria?”
–Extract from the Address by His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew at the October 2008 Synaxis of the Heads of All Orthodox Churches (From the Orthodox Observer, Synaxis Special 2008)
And from Father Alexander Schmemann:
The universal ecclesiology finds its fullest expression in Roman Catholic theology, crowned by the Vatican dogma of 1870. Here the only adequate expression of the Church as organism is the universal structure of the Church, its universal unity. The Church is the sum of all local churches, which all together constitute the Body of Christ. The Church is thus conceived in terms of whole and parts. Each community, each local church is but a part, a member of this universal organism; and it participates in the Church only through its belonging to the “whole.” In the words of one of its best exponents, Roman theology seeks a definition of the Church in which “parts would receive within the whole, conceived really as a whole, the status of genuine parts.”
We do not need to go here into all details of this ecclesiology. The important point here is for us to see that in the light of this doctrine the need for and the reality of a universal head, i. e. the Bishop of Rome, can no longer be termed an exaggeration. It becomes not only acceptable but necessary. If the Church is an universal organism, she must have at her head a universal bishop as the focus of her unity and the organ of supreme power. The idea, popular in Orthodox apologetics, that the Church can have no visible head, because Christ is her invisible head, is theological nonsense.17 If applied consistently, it should also eliminate the necessity for the visible head of each local church, i.e. the bishop. Yet it is the basic assumption of a “catholic” ecclesiology that the visible structure of the Church manifests and communicates its invisible nature. The invisible Christ is made present through and in the visible unity of the Bishop and the People: the Head and the Body.18 To oppose the visible structure to the invisible Christ leads inescapably to the Protestant divorce between a visible and human Church which is contingent, relative, and changing, and an invisible Church in heaven. We must simply admit that if the categories of organism and organic unity are to be applied primarily to the Church universal as the sum of all its component parts (i. e. local churches), then the one, supreme, and universal power as well as its bearer become a self-evident necessity because this unique visible organism must have a unique visible head. Thus the efforts of Roman Catholic theologians to justify Roman primacy not by mere historical contingencies but by divine institution appear as logical. Within universal ecclesiology primacy is of necessity power, and, by the same necessity, a Divinely instituted power; we have all this in a consistent form in the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Church.
Here’s the full article:aoiusa.org/the-idea-of-primacy-in-orthodox-ecclesiology/

There’s more that I’m in the process of finding. I’ll try to get back to you with it if I can.
Also, most Orthodox accept Papal Primacy (but not Supremacy). If the schism ended tomorrow, the Orthodox would consider Pope Francis the head of the Christian faith, not the Patriarch of Constantinople. (Or so they claim)

But they don’t consider themselves the universal authority, at least in the same sense the Catholic Church does. They regard the Pope as the proper (albeit schismatic) Patriarch of the West. Western Europe isn’t their jurisdiction, it’s the Pope’s jurisdiction.
St. Irenaues(who was born and raised in the east), clearly stated in his work “Against Heresies” that all churches must be in accordance with the Church in Rome, “because of it’s superior pre-eminance”. Not just to agree with, but must “resort to” Rome in the case of any disunity or dispute(as was done countles times such as in the case of Paul of Samasota, Athanasius(the “council of Tyre”), St. John Chrysostom’s exile by the Byzantine emperor, etc.).

They lack at least one if not two of the marks of the the true Church as laid our by St. Augustine: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

That’s why ,at least IMHO, I chose the Catholic Church over the EO churches.
 
Really? They pray for the Theotokos and the other saints? Or are you just making that distinction because they don’t actually use the word “Purgatory”?i
They pray for the dead in general, which would presumably include the other saints. I don’t think they make a habit of specifically praying for the Saints.
Catholics, also, pray for all the dead because we cannot know their fate
But if someone has been canonized, that is an infallible judgement on the part of the Pope. So you don’t pray for all the dead. Aren’t Catholic prayers for the general dead, titled something like “A Prayer for the Souls in Purgatory”.

Also, I presume Catholics don’t pray for souls that have already left purgatory. Perhaps this is an irrelevant tangent, but it’s still an example of theological development.
 
Agreed. However, if doctrine actually developed in the way Catholics claim it does, I’d expect something very different.

First, the basic doctrines would be outlined by the Apostles. Second, the basic doctrines would be expanded by the post-Apostolic church. Third, more complex doctrines would be expanded by the post-post-Apostolic church. Over time, development would cover all major issues, and only the extremely complex,and arcane issues would still be in development.

But that’s not how it looks at all. It seems to go in spurts - Papal Infallibility appears in the middle ages, and shortly becomes a majority opinion in the Church. By 1000 AD, I’d expect all major issues to have been resolved, and only minor issues left.

Why did nobody notice it until the middle ages?
There were issues about the papacy in the 200’s with the Docetists and the rigorists. They claimed that the pope couldn’t forgive the sins of those who lapsed and sacrificed to the Roman gods during the persecutions.

The Church insisted that the pope had the infallible authority to forgive all sins, even apostacy.

St. Cyprian of Carthage wrote extensively on this, and the Docetist position was rejected.

By and large the authority of the Pope to expound infallibly was never really debated. It was when certain EO bishops found themselves on the wrong side of doctrine and the Pope had to step in as the Universal See to correct them that challenges to his authority arose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top