Originally posted by Elitoft:

One should not attribute the ideas of individuals with the universal teaching of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church does not encourage a propositional view, so to speak, of doctrine.

Not every professional theologian calling him or herself Catholic actually teach what is Catholic or what the Church teaches.

I find that far too often the Church is tarred with a brush that really only fits individuals or groups of individuals.

So as I said before there is no difference between east and west in the source and manner and mode of teaching of systematic theology or, if you prefer, doctrine.

Perhaps you should talk to some of the professors at Franciscan University, because they emphasized in their lectures how Vatican II's Dei Verbum involves a return -- away from the Scholastic propositional view of revelation -- to a more Patristic understanding of divine revelation as a gift of self.

God bless,
Todd [/QB]

Originally posted by Elitoft:
Oh Bravo! Precisely! The Church is not the equivalent of the so-called scholastics. The Church never is the equivalent of the sum of her theologians. Thank you for making my point so effortlessly.

Eli

Ah, but as Dr. Hahn pointed out in his lectures -- quoting Cardinal Ratzinger -- the theologians who wrote scripture, and the Fathers of the Church as well, are normative for the Church.

God bless,
Todd [/QB]

Originally posted by Elitoft:
Something that is normative is not indicative of an equivalency. The Church still remains the final arbiter of the truth of revelation, regardless of what the Fathers do or say, regardless of what the professional theologians do or say, regardless of what you and I do or say.

[. . .]

Eli

Originally posted by Apotheoun:
Eli,

I think it might have been more charitable for you to have kept your private opinion (the one you expressed in your last post), private.

God bless,
Todd

Originally posted by Apotheoun:
Eli,

Please try to be more charitable in the future.

God bless,
Todd

Originally posted by francis:
Todd,

I'm trying to understand your presentation of the Eastern view, I really am. What I am struggling with is that it seems (to me) to conflict with the actual facts of history. I'm struggling with how you (and other Eastern Christians) resolve that.

For example, would you agree that 2nd century Christians did not understand the Godhead as three persons in one nature, but instead simply worshipped God the Father, Jesus Christ His Son, and the Holy Spirit, yet also confessed one God? They did not understand (nor care to understand) the philosophical meanings of "person" and "nature", etc.

After centuries of practicing this faith, the Church realized the need to define this belief due to the teachings of heretics that contradicted this practice, using the philosophical means available to them. They realized that Arius' claim that there "once was a time when Christ was not" contradicted the faith that had been practiced since the apostles, so they felt the need to define it more clearly and more precisely than it had been defined previously - and they used terms that were new to the Christian practice, including the greek philosophical terms of "person" and "nature", as well as the term "homoousis".

I see this process as a "development of doctrine". How is it not? Or do you simply believe I am wrong in my recounting of history?

Originally posted by francis:
[qb] Todd,

[. . .]

For example, would you agree that 2nd century Christians did not understand the Godhead as three persons in one nature, but instead simply worshipped God the Father, Jesus Christ His Son, and the Holy Spirit, yet also confessed one God? They did not understand (nor care to understand) the philosophical meanings of "person" and "nature", etc.

Originally posted by francis:
I see this process as a "development of doctrine". How is it not? Or do you simply believe I am wrong in my recounting of history?

Originally posted by francis:
Thanks, Todd, for your responses. I think I see where you are coming from now.

Can Dogma Develop?


The opening verse of the book of Hebrews tells us that "[i]n many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets." This was done fragmentarily, under various figures and symbols. Man was not given religious truth as though from a Scholastic theologian, nicely laid out and fully indexed. Doctrines had to be thought out, lived out in the liturgical life of the Church, even pieced together by the Fathers and ecumenical councils. In this way, the Church has gained an ever-deepening understanding of the deposit of faith that had been "once for all delivered" to it by Christ and the apostles (cf. Jude 3).

Protestants—especially Fundamentalists and Evangelicals—admit that much. They recognize there was a real development in doctrine: There was an initial message, much clouded at the Fall, and then a progressively fuller explanation of God’s teachings as Israel was prepared for the Messiah, until the apostles were instructed by the Messiah himself. Jesus told the apostles that in the Old Testament "many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it" (Matt. 13:17).


Hold Fast to What You Were Taught


Christians have always understood that at the close of the apostolic age—with the death of the last surviving apostle, John, perhaps around A.D. 100—public revelation ceased (Catechism of the Catholic Church 66–67, 73). Christ fulfilled the Old Testament law (Matt. 5:17) and is the ultimate teacher of humanity: "You have one teacher, the Messiah" (Matt. 23:10). The apostles recognized that their task was to pass on, intact, the faith given to them by the Master: "[A]nd what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2); "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it" (2 Tim. 3:14).

However, this closure to public revelation doesn’t mean there isn’t progress in the understanding of what has been entrusted to the Church. Anyone interested in Christianity will ask, "What does this doctrine imply? How does it relate to that doctrine?"

Originally posted by francis:
Todd,

I'm trying to understand your presentation of the Eastern view, I really am. What I am struggling with is that it seems (to me) to conflict with the actual facts of history. I'm struggling with how you (and other Eastern Christians) resolve that.

For example, would you agree that 2nd century Christians did not understand the Godhead as three persons in one nature, but instead simply worshipped God the Father, Jesus Christ His Son, and the Holy Spirit, yet also confessed one God? They did not understand (nor care to understand) the philosophical meanings of "person" and "nature", etc.

After centuries of practicing this faith, the Church realized the need to define this belief due to the teachings of heretics that contradicted this practice, using the philosophical means available to them. They realized that Arius' claim that there "once was a time when Christ was not" contradicted the faith that had been practiced since the apostles, so they felt the need to define it more clearly and more precisely than it had been defined previously - and they used terms that were new to the Christian practice, including the greek philosophical terms of "person" and "nature", as well as the term "homoousis".

I see this process as a "development of doctrine". How is it not? Or do you simply believe I am wrong in my recounting of history?