Where do the developments in doctrine come from?

[Searcher92]

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.

That isn’t a fully accepted position in the Orthodox Church. Many only accept the great Councils as infallible because of their subsequent acceptance by all believers. They don’t believe the bishops (as a body) are immune to error by virtue of their offices alone.

 

[TRH1292]

The below post is a good post from another thread which outlines some of the Catholic-Orthodox Issues.

I am an Antiochian Orthodox who chose to enter into full Communion with Rome. Some reasons I joined Rome (and I will not debate my opinions with Orthodox posters):

1. Some Orthodox Churches require protestants and Catholics to be re-baptised. Some Orthodox Churches require protestants and Catholics to not be re-baptised.
2. The Orthodox Church allows divorce and remarriage.
3. Some Orthodox Churches allow some forms of contraception and other forbid it.
4. They cannot agree as to whether “Latin” figures such as Augustine are “saints,” or “venerable,” or merely confused Christians, or even arch-heretics (nor have I seen any ‘official’ EO pronouncements for the last option). Further, many don’t give the pre-schism Western Fathers as much respect or recognition as they do the Eastern Fathers (though some of them are trying to fix this).
5. They have not had an Ecumenical Council in over 1,000 years, and this is apparently because they have no objective means of calling and establishing one (via Christian emperor or Roman pope). Supposedly, they haven’t needed to define any teachings of doctrines or morality for 1,000 years. The first three points show that they do need an Ecumenical Council.
6. Which Orthodox group constitutes the true faith and succession from the Apostles? Besides the Eastern Orthodox in communion with Constantinople, there are tons of schismatic “True” Orthodox Churches. What to choose? What is the definition of Orthodox? Which teachings are essential to be Orthodox. Which teachings are heretical and make one cease to be Orthodox.

The “True” Orthodox Churches teach the Orthodox faith and have valid apostolic succession. Does this make them Orthodox? They are not in Communion with any ancient Sees. Does this make them not Orthodox.

Then there are the Oriental Orthodox. Who decides what Orthodoxy is? The Oriental Orthodox Fathers say that the Orientals are Orthodox. The Eastern Orthodox Fathers say that the Easterners are Orthodox. Both sets of Fathers believe that the other set is heterodox.

The Fathers define Orthodoxy and Orthodoxy defines who the Fathers are. This is circular reasoning and it makes little sense to me.

Authority was a key issue for me.
2 Maccabees 6:2 And to pollute also the temple in Jerusalem [Judah], and to call it the temple of Jupiter Olympius; and that [temple] in Garizim [Northern Israel/Samaria], of Jupiter the Defender of strangers, as they did desire that dwelt in the place.

There were two temples. There was one on Mount Moriah, instituted by God, used by the Jews [Judah]. And there was another on Mount Gerizim, instituted by man, used by the Samaritans [Northern Israel].

In all the time that Judah was idolatrous, did God ever permit the righteous to break communion with Jerusalem and the son of David? No. Did idolatrous priests who changed the sacrificial rituals invalidate the sacrifices? No [read 1 Samuel 2:12-17].

The prophets worshipped in Jerusalem even though the anointed of God, the king, was evil. No righteous Israelite would ever think of leaving communion with Jerusalem, the house of David. The Catholics worshipped in the Catholic Church even though anointed of God’s vicar, the pope, was evil. No righteous Catholic would ever think of leaving communion with Rome, the See of Peter.

No prophet ever decided to separate from Jerusalem.

One must not leave communion with the Son of David’s vicar, Peter, even though the Catholic Church militant has been filled with corrupted leaders. Note: Even today, the Samaritans follow the Law more strictly than the Jews. That, however, doesn’t change the fact that they went in schism away from Jerusalem.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Very deeply. I’ve concluded that Protestantism is bunk, and am in the process of choosing between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. The idea of development seems central to this debate - if development is legitimate the Orthodox have very incomplete doctrines, if development is illegitimate the Catholics have introduced a bunch of bad innovations.

Fair enough. But it is legitimate to note that from an Evangelical point of view much in Orthodoxy would represent a development too.

When you say “implicit”, what exactly do you mean? For example, Papal Infallibility seems to be first explicitly discussed in the middle ages. But you would presumably say it existed implicitly before that, correct? Which church practices, Traditions or Bible verses imply the Pope is infallible?

By implicit I mean, akin to all of Euclid’s Elements being latent in his starting points or all of an Oak tree being contained in germinal form in an acorn, that more is present in the deposit of faith than any one individual or group can explicitly grasp or state at any one time.

First of all a little caution. When people who have been formed in the Evangelical Protestant world look at Catholicism (and the EOC in many cases) there is a tendency to read their interpretation of Catholicism into Catholic teaching and to that extent not really define it on its own terms before evaluating it.

So regarding how God’s word is transmitted down through history by Scripture and Tradition in the Church they tend to understand it in such that they are really just rephrasing sola scriptura (SS) or at the very least interpreting it through SS. In reality the CC’s view is that God’s word is transmitted by the combined and interrelated process of Scripture and apostolic Tradition in the apostolic Church. That is how the deposit of faith reaches us in time. Evangelicals, attempting to discuss the CC’s view, tend to start with their interpretation of Scripture alone and see those things in Catholic doctrine that differ from their results as being added by tradition and so will say “the CC accepts Scripture but believes that one must add to it by tradition and its own decrees.” But that is not defining what the CC believes. Such a definition would at least be evaluating and interpreting STC by means of SS if not simply rephrasing SS.

Although I am not an expert in the area of the historical development of Papal authority I believe I can point you in the right direction and recommend some reading.

So for, Papal Infallibility, the question needs to be considered starting with the view of the deposit of faith and its transmission mentioned above. We also have to define it properly. Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, chap 4: “ . . . when he [the Pope] speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church to enjoy for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals”

Infallibility is first and foremost a charism given to the whole Church to preserve and propound the deposit of faith. The whole church in union with the Bishop of Rome possesses it. It can be exercised variously. The Church has the “Spirit of Truth” (Jn 16:13; cf. 1 Cor 2:12; 2 Tim 1:14 also v 12) and the “mind of Christ” (1 Cor 2:16). The apostles together authoritatively decide doctrinal and moral matters (Acts 15). They say “it is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us . . .” (v28). The early church clearly saw Ecumenical Councils possessing infallible authority in the same manner. I would observe that your concerns below regarding the consolidation of power would hold for the Ecumenical Councils as well.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

At the same time the Council fathers always included and even looked to the authority of the Bishop of Rome as can be seen from their acts and decrees. Why this primacy of the Church of Rome?

In an interesting ecumenical work (Brown, Donfried, Reumann, eds., Peter in the New Testament they draw conclusions in Chapter 10. Among these is a discussion of images of Peter:
“the second half [of Jn 21] portrays him [Peter] as the shepherd (pastor) of the sheep.” (p. 163)
“Closely connected with the theme of Peter the shepherd/pastor is the image of Peter the Christian martyr.” (164)
“This last point leads us to another theme that emerged as part of the trajectory: Peter the receiver of special revelation.” (164-5)
“An image directly related to Peter the receiver of special revelation is that of Peter the confessor of the true Christian faith.” (165)
“eventually he can be seen as the guardian of the faith against false teaching.” (166) [Italics in the original]

There is also some interesting raw biblical data re the figure of Peter with respect to the college of apostles that has cumulative significance:

1. Peter is mentioned first in the four lists of all the Apostles (Mt 10:2-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:13-16; Acts 1:13) even though he was not called first by Jesus (Jn 1:35, 40).
2. Peter is mentioned more frequently than any other disciple in the Gospels.
3. Peter is the only one of the Twelve Apostles to have his name changed by Jesus (Jn 1:42). His name was Simon.
4. Peter twice confesses the truth about Christ speaking for the Twelve: Mt 16:16 by revelation from the Father; and Jn 6:68-9.
5. Jesus said he would build his Church on Peter as on a rock (Mt 16:18) and gave Peter the “keys to the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 16:19).
6. At the Last Supper, in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus tells Peter that he will pray for him that his faith may not fail and that he should strengthen his brothers because Satan wants to sift them like wheat (Lk 22:31-32).
7. After the resurrection Jesus appeared to Peter (Kephas) before all the other Apostles (Lk 24:34; 1 Cor 15: 4-5).
8. Peter led the apostles in selecting Judas’ replacement (Acts 1:15-26).
9. Peter preached first after Pentecost (Acts 2:14ff)
10. After his conversion Paul went to see Peter (Kephas) (Gal 1:18)

Obviously not. Although I’d certainly wonder why nobody seemed to explicitly discuss certain (very, very important) doctrines before the middle ages. Papal Infallibility could have resolved a bunch of problems in the pre-Medieval Church.

And, it seems quite, well, convenient. If someone wants to solidify their authority in the Church, declaring themselves Infallible is a good way to do that. If a doctrine gives someone a lot of power, it seems reasonable to be suspicious of it, especially if it’s not explicitly present in the early church.

These are fair concerns, but one should explore less jaundiced possibilities as well.

I’m in the process of reading your recommended material.

Glad to hear it. A book traces the history of this issue is J. Michael Miller, The Shepherd and the Rock: Origins, Development, and Mission of the Papacy. Among other things he discusses early interventions of the Roman Church in various places throughout the Mediterranean, appeals to the Roman Church early on, and its reputation for orthodoxy, the primacy of the See of Rome even in certain statements of the Ecumenical Councils.

 

[pablope]

Alright, I read that link. It seems to confirm what I already stated. The Orthodox acknowledge Papal Primacy (and would reinstate the Pope as head of Christianity if the schism ended) but deny Papal Supremacy. I didn’t see any Byzantine support for Papal Supremacy in the paper. Did I miss it?

Well…first, how do you define and understand “papal supremacy”?

Actually, there are instances in the article: an excerpt:

First of all it should be remembered that for the first time in Byzantine history Bishops who later became supporters of Photius had appealed against the judgment of Patriarch Ignatius, which they regarded as unjustified, to the first Patriarch, the Bishop of Rome. There were, of course, other Byzantine Patriarchs who had turned to Rome when unjustly condemned, such as St. Chrysostom and St. Flavian, but in their cases doctrinal questions were involved. The appellations of Gregory Asbestas and of his supporters were made, however, in purely disciplinary matters. Documentary evidence shows that Rome had begun to act as the supreme judge in this disciplinary affair, and that the Byzantine prelates took advantage of a decision of the Synod of Sardica (343) which had acknowledged the supreme position of Rome and had established the right of appeal to the Pope as representing the ultimate authority in the Church. The Canons of this local Synod of Western prelates had not been accepted, so far, in the East. This is the first time in which the Canon was invoked by the Eastern Church.36

 

[pablope]

That isn’t a fully accepted position in the Orthodox Church. Many only accept the great Councils as infallible because of their subsequent acceptance by all believers. They don’t believe the bishops (as a body) are immune to error by virtue of their offices alone.

I think this can be described as a later development in the OC. In one instance i can recall, i think this was the Arian heresy, the majority of believers were Arians…and the minority were those against the Arians…yet the minority belief prevailed.

If you look at acts 15, Peter’s doctrinal pronouncement prevails.

There is a convert who investigated both…OC and CC…and wrote entensively on this investigation.

Here are some links:

chnetwork.org/2011/05/father-raymond-ryland-on-whose-authority/

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/1ORTHO.htm

 

[pablope]

Agreed. However, if doctrine actually developed in the way Catholics claim it does, I’d expect something very different.

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?

Minor issues? We have abortion, ABC, artifical insemination…as the world grows, it gets complicated…and the question then is…how will the Church respond?

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I would also point out in connection with some of the discussion above that the EOC also believes in prayer for the dead and a legitimate school of thought in the EOC believes that the dead are purified prior to entering heaven. (Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, 2nd ed., p, 255) The Orthodox believe in the bodily Assumption of Mary. And an Orthodox would not be a heretic for believing in the Immaculate Conception (Ware, 260).

As far as prayers for the dead go St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Augustine are witnesses to this practice which clearly predates them. They all refer to it as extant and common; and simply discuss it and encourage it. Chrysostom says it is apostolic in origin (Homilies on the Epistle to the Philippians 3, 4).

 

[vsedriver]

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.

weak? David was king and Jesus is his heir. That makes Jesus a king and kings used chief stewards to hold their kingdoms when they went away. A steward doesn’t replace the king but only acts for the king in the king’s absence. And since Jesus is the King and also God your argument doesn’t apply to mine. Jesus specifically tells Peter he is giving him the keys to the kingdom. That makes Peter the chief steward with the right to act for the king on earth.

 

[vsedriver]

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?

He’d be a useless leader or shepherd if he taught the wrong thing when it came to faith and morals. It is the Holy Spirit that guards the teaching of the church and therefore the teachings of the councils and the pope.