Now as far as the question of "doctrinal development" is concerned, I hold that the faith of the Church was delivered once and for all, whole and entire, to the Apostles, and that a decree (horos) of an Ecumenical Council is not a "development" of doctrine, but is instead simply the reaffirmation of the faith of the Church already held and divinely believed.

"Tradition without history has homogenized all the stages of development into one statically defined truth; history without tradition has produced a historicism that relativized the development of Christian doctrine insuch a way as to make the distinction between authentic growth and cancerous aberration seem completely arbitrary."
- From "The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine", Vol 1; read this series to understand how Christian doctrine has developed over the centuries.

That said, there is a difference also between doctrinal clarification, which is addressing confusion or error re particular doctrines, and doctrinal development, which is really "doctrinal evolution", and refers to a change in how a doctrine is understood.

Let's take the Eucharist as an example. It was believed, from the earliest times, that the bread and wine cease to be bread and wine at the consecration and become the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

An example of doctrinal development would be how the Latin Church in the 13th century decided to attempt to explain how this change takes place. They applied the scientific theories of a pagan philosopher to attempt to explain how the bread and wine can retain their physical properties and yet not be bread and wine anymore, and they called the process "transubstantiation."

It was "doctrinal development"-- the west's attempt to define doctrines too specifically-- that helped to spark the Protestant Revolt.

I've heard RC theologians like Scott Hahn describe Orthodox theology as "stagnant", but anyone who thinks this couldn't be more wrong. Unchanging doesn't mean stagnant.

An example of doctrinal development would be how the Latin Church in the 13th century decided to attempt to explain how this change takes place. They applied the scientific theories of a pagan philosopher to attempt to explain how the bread and wine can retain their physical properties and yet not be bread and wine anymore, and they called the process "transubstantiation."

Originally posted by djs:

Quote:

An example of doctrinal development would be how the Latin Church in the 13th century decided to attempt to explain how this change takes place. They applied the scientific theories of a pagan philosopher to attempt to explain how the bread and wine can retain their physical properties and yet not be bread and wine anymore, and they called the process "transubstantiation."

Beyond the clear similarity to the doctrine of the Trinity that Francis noted, this remark, repeated so often, always baffles me. How does anyone get the idea that the idea that "transubstantiation" is an "attempt to explain "how" this change takes place". What is the "how"? It is simply an clear affirmation - to addresses the very obvious question of appearances with some philosophical niceties - that IS means IS.

Orthodox objections to the doctrine of transubstantiation are twofold in nature: (1) it is an attempt to delve into the mystery itself in order to describe what is happening; and (2) it is an attempt to penetrate into an ineffable mystery through the use of a pagan metaphysical system. Now, one can disagree with the Eastern authors who take this position, but at the same time, one must accept that the East does not try to delve into the various mysteries of the faith in order to reduce them to a type of rationalist doctrine.

The majority of responses in this thread so far have tried to read a modern notion of "development" back into the ancient Church. None of the Fathers of the Church would accept the idea that doctrine develops. In fact, they would hold that heresies are developments, while a horos (which means "decree," not "definition") of a Council is a reaffirmation of the existing faith of the Church put forward in order to oppose error. The Catholic faith is that which has been held always, everywhere, and by all.

The Western notion of "doctrinal development," as Fr. Aidan Nichols has indicated in his book "From Newman to Congar," is a 19th century idea.

Originally posted by francis:

Quote:

The majority of responses in this thread so far have tried to read a modern notion of "development" back into the ancient Church. None of the Fathers of the Church would accept the idea that doctrine develops. In fact, they would hold that heresies are developments, while a horos (which means "decree," not "definition") of a Council is a reaffirmation of the existing faith of the Church put forward in order to oppose error. The Catholic faith is that which has been held always, everywhere, and by all.

The Western notion of "doctrinal development," as Fr. Aidan Nichols has indicated in his book "From Newman to Congar," is a 19th century idea.

You may be right here. But it seems to me that an honest assesment of the past 2,000 years shows that development has happened within orthodox belief since the 1st century, whether the Church Fathers accepted that fact or not. Fr. Nichols, Newman, et. al. are simply acknowledging that fact and attempting to explain it within the context of the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Originally posted by francis:
Apotheoun,

Quote:

Orthodox objections to the doctrine of transubstantiation are twofold in nature: (1) it is an attempt to delve into the mystery itself in order to describe what is happening; and (2) it is an attempt to penetrate into an ineffable mystery through the use of a pagan metaphysical system. Now, one can disagree with the Eastern authors who take this position, but at the same time, one must accept that the East does not try to delve into the various mysteries of the faith in order to reduce them to a type of rationalist doctrine.

How is that different from the doctrine of the Trinity? Does that not delve into an ineffable mystery through the use of a pagan metaphysical system?

I honestly do not see the difference.