Why Catholic and not Orthodox?

[sidbrown]

If that is what ‘development’ truly can do, then the whole concept of ‘dogma’ is meaningless.

We cannot have theology mean something different over time.

There is dogma, there is doctrine, and there is teaching for the present time. I don;t think tha it is right to object when a Church or organisation adjusts or develops its teaching in the light of a new situation. And I think that this is what is going to occur in the unlikely event that there is a reunion. The teaching on universal papal jurisdiction which is in effect for the Roman Catholic Church will be modified somewhat when it comes to the unified Church situation. I don’t see why anyone would be against this as it looks to me to be a pretty good idea according to which the scope and limitation of this papal jurisdiction would be as it was in the undivided Church in 1054. In fact a study along these lines is going on right now.

 

[Hesychios]

… it dogma

I am not really opposing this concept for the Latin Catholic church. To be honest to me this looks like the only way forward ‘around’ the impasse, and is one of the things I argue for (in assorted ways) quite often

However, the concept of developing an interpretation of dogma into something new or even opposite it’s original definition is itself rather bogus , and I should oppose it on principle.

 

[sidbrown]

However, the concept of developing an interpretation of dogma into something new or even opposite it’s original definition is itself rather bogus , and I should oppose it on principle.

Really, the development of dogma is bogus? Take for example the development of the dogma that there is One God. According to the Jewsih teaching before Christ, the teaching of the chosen people was encapsulated in the prayer: Hear O Israel, the Lord Thy God is One. There was no concept of a Trinitarian God before the coming of Christ, as far as I know. But then after the Incarnation, our knowledge changed and Christians now adhere the to the belief in a Trinitarian God. So the development of what we believe about the oneness of God has developed to encompass a Trinitarian God and there is nothing bogus about this development as far as I can see.

 

[Hesychios]

Really, the development of dogma is bogus? Take for example the development of the dogma that there is One God. According to the Jewsih teaching before Christ, the teaching of the chosen people was encapsulated in the prayer: Hear O Israel, the Lord Thy God is One. There was no concept of a Trinitarian God before the coming of Christ, as far as I know. But then after the Incarnation, our knowledge changed and Christians now adhere the to the belief in a Trinitarian God. So the development of what we believe about the oneness of God has developed to encompass a Trinitarian God and there is nothing bogus about this development as far as I can see.

Please note that I did not state here that development itself is bogus. Sometimes it is inevitable as theological notions are narrowed down to the essentials, concisely removing interpretations of the heretics in the church. (I don’t know any other way of putting this … ). In such a case the ‘development’ is actually driven by the heretics, and the fathers are paring back on it (an understanding of the “via negativa” or apophatic reasoning is helpful here).

But enlarging, shifting or transforming beliefs according to plan is bogus.

There is one set of received Teaching from Christ through the Apostles, it cannot be changed.

I will admit that this is what I have wanted the Latin Catholic church to do: change it’s beliefs system by repudiating it’s additions. However, Truth cannot be rationalized away and if these new dogmas are true (in their opinion) I think that they would be crazy to reinterpret them.

I thought that this thread was a good study of the problems associated with reinterpreting doctrine. In my personal opinion most of the posters there are (rather innocently) engaging in semantics. The opera isn’t over 'til the fat lady sings. Over the next 1000 years (if the process continues and supposing humanity is still clamoring around this planet) people will not know what to think.

I personally feel that if the church needs to reverse itself it should just admit “oh oh, we goofed!” That’s what the Latin church always expected of the Eastern churches when they got their authorities in there: reading the histories one sees many times that Rome took it upon itself to “correct the books” of other churches and pushed these new practices and beliefs on them.

Pretending not to reverse oneself, while in effect doing just that by “clarifying” or “developing” the teaching lacks integrity.

 

[sidbrown]

Please note that I did not state here that development itself is bogus. Sometimes it is inevitable as theological notions are narrowed down to the essentials, concisely removing interpretations of the heretics in the church. (I don’t know any other way of putting this … ). In such a case the ‘development’ is actually driven by the heretics, and the fathers are paring back on it (an understanding of the “via negativa” or apophatic reasoning is helpful here).

But enlarging, shifting or transforming beliefs according to plan is bogus.

There is one set of received Teaching from Christ through the Apostles, it cannot be changed.

I will admit that this is what I have wanted the Latin Catholic church to do: change it’s beliefs system by repudiating it’s additions. However, Truth cannot be rationalized away and if these new dogmas are true (in their opinion) I think that they would be crazy to reinterpret them.

I thought that this thread was a good study of the problems associated with reinterpreting doctrine. In my personal opinion most of the posters there are (rather innocently) engaging in semantics. The opera isn’t over 'til the fat lady sings. Over the next 1000 years (if the process continues and supposing humanity is still clamoring around this planet) people will not know what to think.

I personally feel that if the church needs to reverse itself it should just admit “oh oh, we goofed!” That’s what the Latin church always expected of the Eastern churches when they got their authorities in there: reading the histories one sees many times that Rome took it upon itself to “correct the books” of other churches and pushed these new practices and beliefs on them.

Pretending not to reverse oneself, while in effect doing just that by “clarifying” or “developing” the teaching lacks integrity.

But was the develpment of the dogma that God is One bogus or not?

 

[Hesychios]

But was the develpment of the dogma that God is One bogus or not?

You are referring to the Shema, which is a revelation of God, and part of the Received Teaching.

“Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One”

It appears in the Old Testament and is quoted by Jesus in the Gospel Mark 12.

The concept of the Holy Trinity can be regarded as a legitimate development because heretics and gnostics of many different types were believing all manner of things:

• There were two Gods
• There were multiple gods
• Jesus was a human creature but not divine (the Holy Spirit was God, but Jesus was ‘adopted’ at the Jordan river)
• Jesus was fully divine but not a man with a body (tied to the impassibility of God)
• The Holy Ghost was not God
• God ‘transformed’ Himself from one form to another

And on and on …

The definition was a way of knocking out the dross, saying ‘no’ to all the other possibilities. It wasn’t planned, nor a compromise, it was a stance forced upon the church fathers who examined (from the prayers of worship, catechetical prayers for the baptismal font and the Gospels) what they believed was the teaching they inherited through the Apostles. This was as narrowly done as possible.

In others words they were positively affirming what they already prayed. :bowdown:

Shouldn’t you be asleep?

 

[rinnie]

Thank you. I can see now that we are worlds away. I am sad to hear this I thought we were much closer then this. But I can see there is quite a difference. And from what I have read will be for a very long time. I never realized how apart we really are.

 

[Theoferrum]

And by the way, No church is the real one of the Christ, all the churches are REAL.

Thanks for reading Brothers and Sisters.

Message written by:
Gabi J Sabbagh
IOH: International Orthodox Help for Bible Teaching.

I disagree. The Protestants, when they walked away from the Eucharist, walked away from the New Covenant - some of them have actually realized this, inadvertantly, when they say that they do not “live under” the New Covenant, but under the Abrahamic Covenant Renewed. There is not one single Protestant Church that is true. Period.

As far as the Catholic and Orthodox both are part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and, in fact, the Great Schism was actually necessary.

I explain this on the thread I just started on the Two Olive Branches, for those that are interested at the URL below, but to summerize, the Two Olive Branches of Zechariah are, in fact, the Two Branches of the Church - Catholic and Orthodox - both are the True Church that was founded by Y’shua.

*The Two Olive Branches :

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=422132 *

 

[Madaglan]

I disagree. The Protestants, when they walked away from the Eucharist, walked away from the New Covenant - some of them have actually realized this, inadvertantly, when they say that they do not “live under” the New Covenant, but under the Abrahamic Covenant Renewed. There is not one single Protestant Church that is true. Period.

As far as the Catholic and Orthodox both are part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and, in fact, the Great Schism was actually necessary.

I explain this on the thread I just started on the Two Olive Branches, for those that are interested at the URL below, but to summerize, the Two Olive Branches of Zechariah are, in fact, the Two Branches of the Church - Catholic and Orthodox - both are the True Church that was founded by Y’shua.

The Two Olive Branches :

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=422132

What you present is another form of the branch theory, never endorsed by either the Catholic or Orthodox Church. Considering that the theory developed in Anglicanism, the Anglicans would have issue were they not considered one of the two olive branches!

 

[Vico]

…
But enlarging, shifting or transforming beliefs according to plan is bogus.

There is one set of received Teaching from Christ through the Apostles, it cannot be changed.

I will admit that this is what I have wanted the Latin Catholic church to do: change it’s beliefs system by repudiating it’s additions. However, Truth cannot be rationalized away and if these new dogmas are true (in their opinion) I think that they would be crazy to reinterpret them.
…
Pretending not to reverse oneself, while in effect doing just that by “clarifying” or “developing” the teaching lacks integrity.

Hesychios, I saw your remark to sidbrown.

So you are aware that not all the assertions of the teaching authority of the Church on questions of faith and morals are infallible?

Infallable assertions emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal decisions ex cathedra. The usual Papal teachings or decisions from the Roman Congregations are not infallible so they may be changed.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Hesychios, I saw your remark to sidbrown.

So you are aware that not all the assertions of the teaching authority of the Church on questions of faith and morals are infallible?

Infallable assertions emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal decisions ex cathedra. The usual Papal teachings or decisions from the Roman Congregations are not infallible so they may be changed.

Just to note, the universal primacy was proclaimed by the Council of Florence and reafirmed at Vatican I.

So it is infallible.

 

[Vico]

Just to note, the universal primacy was proclaimed by the Council of Florence and reafirmed at Vatican I.

So it is infallible.

And also confirmed at Vatican II, in Lumen Gentium 22-23.

“But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power.”

Lumen Gentium:
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

 

[sidbrown]

The concept of the Holy Trinity can be regarded as a legitimate development because heretics and gnostics of many different types were believing all manner of things.

Then this makes my point that the concept of development of doctrine can be legitimate and therefore it is wrong to call it a bogus concept.

 

[Hesychios]

Then this makes my point that the concept of development of doctrine can be legitimate and therefore it is wrong to call it a bogus concept.

I have tried to explain what I thought was bogus and what I thought was not. You must (I should hope) agree that the recognizing of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit as the One God with the Father does not compare in the slightest sense with reversing a dogma just because it is convenient, popular or seems politically correct.

If you cannot grasp the difference I have nothing more to say on the subject.

That said, in one sense I wish you were right because it seems the only way forward to reconciliation. Orthodox will not change nor add to their dogmatic legacy, but the Latin church has the ability (if it should choose) to reverse itself through development [rationalization].

In another sense I fear this greatly, because if any dogma can be reversed, added to or changed through rationalization then the whole concept of dogma is thrown out the window, and Orthodox would not entrust their precious Faith to any authority that presumes to be able to overwrite or recompile beliefs.

God help us if that should ever happen, and may He have mercy upon us in spite of our stupidity.

 

[Hesychios]

Hesychios, …

So you are aware that not all the assertions of the teaching authority of the Church on questions of faith and morals are infallible?

Yes.

Infallable assertions emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal decisions ex cathedra.

… we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks ex Cathedra that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours:* let him be anathema*.

The usual Papal teachings or decisions from the Roman Congregations are not infallible so they may be changed.

That may be the position of your church (I am not sure that this is explicitly taught by your church), but I disagree with the concept on principle. Doctrine, the Received Faith, should not be changeable, especially now and into the future two thousand years after Christ. We would have to be crazy to agree to this as a possibility going forward from this point.

Any office or person that presumes to be able to do this (change doctrine in the future) upon it’s own authority … well … let him be anathema.

 

[SyroMalankara]

The Eastern Orthodox also have a “way” to “develop” or “adjust” doctrine - it can be stated that whatever was determined was not received by the laity. Precedence shows that there is no time limit for this determination - e.g. Iconoclasm, Arianism, etc.

 

[Hesychios]

Hesychios, …

So you are aware that not all the assertions of the teaching authority of the Church on questions of faith and morals are infallible?

Yes.

Infallable assertions emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal decisions ex cathedra.

… we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks ex Cathedra that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours:* let him be anathema*.

With the very strong and clearly worded text presented here, I find it hard to believe that anyone could seriously consider ‘developing’ it into something different.

As an Orthodox Catholic Christian I reject this entirely and wish the Latin Catholic church would dump it for the sake of Christian unity, but realistically I don’t see how they can possibly do that.

The usual Papal teachings or decisions from the Roman Congregations are not infallible so they may be changed.

That is interesting. But then again Papal teachings are not the seminal source of the Faith, they are entirely secondary and tertiary.

With the concept of Universal Jurisdiction the Pope can bind his church and all in it, but still there is this admission that it’s own post Apostolic pronouncements could be in error and need correction.

 

[Vico]

…
With the very strong and clearly worded text presented here, I find it hard to believe that anyone could seriously consider ‘developing’ it into something different.

As an Orthodox Catholic Christian I reject this entirely and wish the Latin Catholic church would dump it for the sake of Christian unity, but realistically I don’t see how they can possibly do that. …

I have a hard time believing it could change also. See the statement from Vatican I, 1870:

“When the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in exercising his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians he defines with his supreme apostolic authority that a doctrine on faith and morals is to be held by the whole Church, through the divine assistance promised him in the person of St. Peter, he enjoys that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished to endow his Church in defining a doctrine on faith and morals. Therefore, these definitions of the Roman Pontiff are unreformable per se, and not because of the Church’s consent” (DS 3074).

I don’t know how accurate it is but wikipedia has a list of seven ex cathedra statements and the earliest two are year 449, and 680, both on the two natures of Christ.

Here is a partial list of the ex cathedra statements in an article by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, 1998.

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

 

[sidbrown]

I have tried to explain what I thought was bogus and what I thought was not. You must (I should hope) agree that the recognizing of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit as the One God with the Father does not compare in the slightest sense with reversing a dogma just because it is convenient, popular or seems politically correct.

If you cannot grasp the difference I have nothing more to say on the subject.

That said, in one sense I wish you were right because it seems the only way forward to reconciliation. Orthodox will not change nor add to their dogmatic legacy, but the Latin church has the ability (if it should choose) to reverse itself through development [rationalization].

In another sense I fear this greatly, because if any dogma can be reversed, added to or changed through rationalization then the whole concept of dogma is thrown out the window, and Orthodox would not entrust their precious Faith to any authority that presumes to be able to overwrite or recompile beliefs.

God help us if that should ever happen, and may He have mercy upon us in spite of our stupidity.

No, I do not see things that way. In the first place, it seems to me that once you have admitted, even in a limited situation, the theological principle of development of doctrine, then it seems to me that it is unwarranted to call this principle a bogus concept. Further, as to when and where this theological principle should be applied might very well come under the category of a prudential decision which, being subject to theological opinion and discussion pro or con, would also not be something that I would consider to be bogus. And further, it seems like the Orthodox Church has made changes in teaching from what the early Church has taught. For example, St. Paul teaches us that slaves are to be subject to their masters. However, I would be surprised if the Orthodox would consider it to be a sin if an enslaved woman from the Orient or from a poor locale in Eastern Europe or Africa, fled and ran away from her slave-master today. Other changes that I have seen concern the use of the organ and organ music in Orthodox Churches, the wearing of headcovering for women, the permission to use artificial birth control in some limited circumstances. To sum up, some teachings have changed or developed in the Orthodox Church also. since these are seen as justifiable changes, the concept of developing tradition cannot be said to be a bogus concept.

 

[Madaglan]

No, I do not see things that way. In the first place, it seems to me that once you have admitted, even in a limited situation, the theological principle of development of doctrine, then it seems to me that it is unwarranted to call this principle a bogus concept. Further, as to when and where this theological principle should be applied might very well come under the category of a prudential decision which, being subject to theological opinion and discussion pro or con, would also not be something that I would consider to be bogus. And further, it seems like the Orthodox Church has made changes in teaching from what the early Church has taught. For example, St. Paul teaches us that slaves are to be subject to their masters. However, I would be surprised if the Orthodox would consider it to be a sin if an enslaved woman from the Orient or from a poor locale in Eastern Europe or Africa, fled and ran away from her slave-master today. Other changes that I have seen concern the use of the organ and organ music in Orthodox Churches, the wearing of headcovering for women, the permission to use artificial birth control in some limited circumstances. To sum up, some teachings have changed or developed in the Orthodox Church also. since these are seen as justifiable changes, the concept of developing tradition cannot be said to be a bogus concept.

St. Paul elevates brotherhood above slavery elsewhere (Philemon). St. Paul is working with the conditions of his time. He shows the proper relationship that ought to exist between master and slave, but he points to something better. The use of the organ is not endemic to the East, and many Orthodox (and Eastern Catholic) parishes that have it are trying to phase out of this Latinization. Headcovering for women is the norm in the Orthodox Church, as it was in the Latin Church until several decades ago. But all this is largely disciplinary, and does not concern doctrine proper.