The Iambic Pen:
The idea of the development of doctrine is something I really didn’t have a problem with until it appeared that the Orthodox had not had the same development. One could argue that, since they were not guided by the Pope, their doctrine did not develop as it should have. Of course, the Orthodox view is that Catholic doctrine developed in ways it shouldn’t have.
Development of Doctrine can be understood by Orthodox, but it is primarily a consequence of
cataphatic thought processes, which are not as influential as
apophatic thought in the east. Even the earliest councils (from the east) are indicative of that. There is a noted reluctance to define anything with more detail than absolutely necessary, and the definitions were mostly about things that were already prayed in the liturgy. Odd that we should pray about them and not understand them! These were inherited teachings from the Apostles, not new ideas.
Much of the ‘development’ in the west is actually a consequence of scholasticism. These new tools of thought have an application to be sure but the aim here is to “know more and more”. We can never know enough to know it all and already know what is necessary for salvation, it has been revealed to us! The rest can be like building a Tower of Babel with human ideas. These will never really get us any closer to God than we were in Apostolic times. Our focus then should be to avoid error and live the Gospel, not to “know more”.
The Iambic Pen:
if Christ desires His Church to spread the Gospel to all the world, one wonders why Orthodoxy is still focused on a few cultures in Eastern Europe. … It does seem, though, that even these “satellite Churches” are still very much tied to a specific Eastern European community. I think it’s safe to say most Orthodox in the U.S. are Russian, Ukrainian, or Greek.
The Eastern churches were limited in their geographical extension due to a number of historical factors, two notable ones being the Muslim Arab and Turkish conquests (and subsequent intolerance) and the conversion of the Mongols to Islam.
Nevertheless, there have been spectacular achievements. Notably
- the spread of the Coptic church south along the Nile into the horn of Africa by the 3rd century
- The spread of the church of the East across the southern rim of Asia all the way to China by the 7th century
- The spread of the Byzantine Slavonic church across the northern rim of Asia to Alaska by the 18th century
Most of the early missionary achievements of the eastern churches were lost in the maelstrom of violent Asian history. The western church was protected to some extent by it’s considerable distance from the Arabian heartland.
At the time technology and knowledge had increased enough to sail larger ships across the open seas the remaining free Orthodox Eastern nations were primarily landlocked. Only Russia had the opportunity to expand in the manner of the Spanish, French and Portuguese yet this required slogging across central Asia without a sea passage.
The matter of the various Orthodox churches in North America has been addressed a number of times here. There wasn’t a problem until the Bolshevik revolution, after which each synod established bishops to care for their people. We understand that this is uncanonical and temporary, no one expects an immediate resolution but it is definitely not acceptable to Orthodoxy.
One notes the criticism about the ethnic focus of the Orthodox churches. It is a valid comment but we must realize that Orthodoxy is still in many ways an immigrant church and immigrant communities tend to act that way. Holy Orthodoxy is about 100 years behind the Roman Catholic church and if one looks at the state of Roman Catholicism around 1900 in the USA it is easy to see.
In addition the RC started with an English speaking group of immigrants, namely the Irish. That had to have been a big help in the integration process.
This same thing is happening in Orthodoxy, but like I said we are about 100 years behind in this integration. My parish was established 100 years ago as a Russian congregation, it was founded by a priest who was the first priest-martyr to fall to the guns of the Bolsheviks. Yet today we have English liturgies, a highly mixed ethnic base and about 40 percent converts. Our last previous pastor was a former Benedictine monk and even our deacon of many years was an African American! Not bad for an ethnically “exclusive” Orthodox church.
http://ocaphoto.oca.org/filetmp/2003/October/682/Detail/DSC_0007.jpg
Now, I have seen writings from the early Christians in support of this doctrine from the first few centuries after Christ, but if it really was accepted (though not pronounced) in the Early Church, when did the Orthodox officially cease to believe it?
