• For users new and old: the forum rules were streamlined when we transitioned to the new software. Please ensure that you are familiar with them. Continued use of the forum means that you (a) know the rules, and (b) pledge that you'll abide by them. For more information, check out the OrthodoxChristianity.Net Rules section. (There are only 2 threads there - Rules, and Administrative Structure.)

Orthodox Critiques of the "Development of Doctrine"

Asteriktos

Strategos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,584
Reaction score
331
Points
83
Are there any Orthodox critiques of the Catholic concept of "the development of doctrine"? Texts of any size would be of interest to me, though something a bit more formal, like articles that have appeared in magazines or journals or books, would be most helpful.
 

Asteriktos

Strategos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,584
Reaction score
331
Points
83
I recall reading this not too long ago, was it brought up in another thread on the subject? Nonetheless, thank you for reminding me of it :)
 

akimel

High Elder
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
523
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
afkimel.wordpress.com
Fr John Behr touches on doctrinal development in his presentation "Orthodoxy," but I would not call this a substantive analysis and critique.  It's difficult to find Orthodox theologians who have addressed the topic in a sustained and thorough way.  Florovsky implicitly touches upon the topic in his discussion of Tradition and his critique of the Vincentian canon:  "The Catholicity of the Church."

 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,813
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Location
Chicago
Just stumble over this
http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_000_Index.htm
PROGRESSIVIST DOCUMENT OF THE WEEK

Each week TIA features a document that shows the goals and methods
of Progressivism in the Church



March 12, 2011
Newman dedicates his work on development of doctrine to Anglicans  


December 12, 2010
Newman: Papal Infallibility was theologically inaccurate  


November 13, 2010
Newman sabotages Papal Infallibility  


October 16, 2010
Newman flip-flops on Papal Infallibility



September 18, 2010
Newman against Papal Infallibility



September 11, 2010
Rome to Newman: ‘You are the head of the English Liberal Catholics’



September 4, 2010
Newman supports free speech in the Church



April 24, 2010
Newman's longings for Vatican II



April 10, 2010
Newman's resentment of authority



March 20, 2010
Rome speaks: ‘Newman is the most dangerous man in England’



March 13, 2010
Newman regrets the Syllabus



March 6, 2010
Newman's strong reservations on devotion to Our Lady



February 27, 2010
Newman's continued admiration for Anglicanism



February 20, 2010
The ecumenical formation Newman gave youth



February 13, 2010
Newman supports the liberal agenda against Pius IX



February 6, 2010
Newman suspect in Rome



January 30, 2010
Newman's method to promote Liberal Catholicism



January 23, 2010
Newman's admiration for Acton and Döllinger



December 26, 2009
Paul VI: The conciliar Church is ‘betrothed’ to Anglicanism



November 28, 2009
Fr. Chenu: The Catholic transcendent God is an idol



October 17, 2009
Fr. Von Balthasar: Rahner and I always held the same ideas



September 26, 2009
Ratzinger is a ‘dangerous modernist,’ his doctoral thesis assessor affirms



August 29, 2009
Condemnation of Teilhard de Chardin by the Holy Office in 1962



August 1, 2009
Benedict XVI praises the cosmic liturgy of Teilhard de Chardin



July 11, 2009
Card. Arns: The Communist Revolution in Cuba is a sign of the kingdom of God



 

Apotheoun

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
1,462
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Northern California
Website
sites.google.com
Here is what Fr. Florovsky said in an article entitled, "Revelation, Philosophy and Theology" (n.b., this article originally appeared as "Offenbarung, Philosophic und Theologie" in Zwischen den Zeiten, Heft 6, München, 1931. Translated from the German by Richard Haugh):


"Dogma is by no means a new Revelation. Dogma is only a witness. The whole meaning of dogmatic definition consists of testifying to unchanging truth, truth which was revealed and has been preserved from the beginning. Thus it is a total misunderstanding to speak of 'the development of dogma.' Dogmas do not develop; they are unchanging and inviolable, even in their external aspect — their wording. Least of all is it possible to change dogmatic language or terminology. As strange as it may appear, one can indeed say: dogmas arise, dogmas are established, but they do not develop. And once established, a dogma is perennial and already an immutable 'rule of faith' ('regula fidei'; o kanon tis pisteos, ο κανων της πιστεως). Dogma is an intuitive truth, not a discursive axiom which is accessible to logical development. The whole meaning of dogma lies in the fact that it is expressed truth. Revelation discloses itself and is received in the silence of faith, in silent vision — this is the first and apophatic step of the knowledge of God. The entire fulness of truth is already contained in this apophatic vision, but truth must be expressed. Man, however, is called not only to be silent but also to speak, to communicate. The silentium mysticum does not exhaust the entire fulness of the religious vocation of man. There is also room for the expression of praise. In her dogmatic confession the Church expresses herself and proclaims the apophatic truth which she preserves. The quest for dogmatic definitions is therefore, above all, a quest for terms. Precisely because of this the doctrinal controversies were a dispute over terms. One had to find accurate and clear words which could describe and express the experience of the Church. One had to express that 'spiritual Vision' which presents itself to the believing spirit in experience and contemplation."


Source:  Revelation, Philosophy and Theology
 

Asteriktos

Strategos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,584
Reaction score
331
Points
83
So it seems, based on what I've read, that there is no credible criticism of the RC development of doctrine from an Orthodox perspective. Thank you all for helping make this clear to me.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Asteriktos said:
So it seems, based on what I've read, that there is no credible criticism of the RC development of doctrine from an Orthodox perspective. Thank you all for helping make this clear to me.
Well, Isa has not yet told us what Saint John of Damascus has to say on it but in my view that matter was expressed very well 1600 years ago by our holy father Saint Vincent of Lerins:


But the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another's, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view,--if there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it, if any already ratified and defined to keep and guard it.

Finally, what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently, that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly, that what was before practised negligently should thenceforward be practised with double solicitude? This, I say, is what the Catholic Church, roused by the novelties of heretics, has accomplished by the decrees of her Councils,--this, and nothing else,--she has thenceforward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those of olden times only by tradition, comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by the characteristic of a new name.

From his Commonitorium
 

Asteriktos

Strategos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,584
Reaction score
331
Points
83
Indeed, so why don't the Orthodox follow the lead of Sts. Vincent of Lerins, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory Dialogist, Cardinal Newman, etc.?  ??? 
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,495
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
New England
ialmisry said:
Just stumble over this
http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_000_Index.htm
PROGRESSIVIST DOCUMENT OF THE WEEK

Each week TIA features a document that shows the goals and methods
of Progressivism in the Church



March 12, 2011
Newman dedicates his work on development of doctrine to Anglicans  


December 12, 2010
Newman: Papal Infallibility was theologically inaccurate  
Well duh. Naturally, Newman didn't always believe in Papal Infallibility (while he was still Anglican). But if they are saying that Newman denied Papal Infallibility after becoming [Roman] Catholic, then I would be very skeptical of that claim.
 

NicholasMyra

Merarches
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
8,839
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Website
hyperdoxherman.tumblr.com
Asteriktos said:
Indeed, so why don't the Orthodox follow the lead of Sts. Vincent of Lerins, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory Dialogist, Cardinal Newman, etc.?  ???  
Does this help? You could entitle it "Organic development vs. doctrinal innovation"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pXOYxCPXNY
 
Top