www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Development of Doctrine

In another thread, someone posited what seems to be a common Eastern belief:

That sounds well and good; however, I must ask: how does one square that belief with actual history?

If you look at the history of Christian doctrine, it is clear that it has developed over the centuries, both in the East and (especially) in the West. For example, in the 1st and 2nd centuries, there is no evidence of a full understanding of the Trinity and Christ's human/divine natures as it was later defined in the 4th and 5th century councils. This type of development is also true of the Real Presence of the Eucharist, the distinction between divine energies/essence, and other core doctrines. It tooks centuries for the Church to develop a proper understanding of these truths.

As Jaroslav Pelikan has written:

It appears to me that many Eastern Christians fall into the first part of Pelikan's statement; am I misunderstanding the Eastern view of the Development of Doctrine?

Dear Francis,

Christ is risen!

I am not Orthodox (yet) but allow me to take a stab at addressing your question.

The Eastern Orthodox view is that the first seven ecumenical councils were established for clarifying doctrinal issues, and that there is really no need for any more.

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.

The Trinity and the divinity of Christ were not beliefs that the Church defined later; it was already believed, and the Church simply had to clarify/reaffirm these doctrines, particularly when they were denied. Yes, there were some unanswered questions re the Trinity and the natures of Christ, but these would not really be examples of doctrinal development so much as doctrinal clarification.

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.

I'm sure someone here more knowledgable than I could explain it better.

God bless,

Karen

It's interesting to hear some Orthodox have said that the Orthodox refuses to have any further Ecumenical Council (the next one would be 8th one in their eyes) because of the schism between two Churches.

So, I think it's really cool and nice of the Orthodox to want to WAIT until the full unity between two Churches to proceed to the next Ecumenical Council. I guess the Orthodox really value Rome's presence in an Ecumenical Council.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

Karen,

Thank you for your reply. I have long had a love for the Christian East, but I've also always struggled with the Eastern attitude against doctrinal development, so I appreciate your effort to educate me.

But it seems to me that history shows that Christians did, in fact, change how a doctrine like the Trinity was understood over the centuries. The 1st century Christians saw most of their beliefs through a Jewish lens, and wouldn't know the first thing about the underlying philosophy behind the Trinity that was used in the 4th century. How is this not development? It's not that the 1st century Christians were in error or confused, they simply understood the Godhead in a different fashion than was later developed.

How is this any different than the explanation of the Trinity defined in the 4th century? The Church Fathers, in order to combat heresy, decided to use "pagan philosophy" to explain the Godhead (philosophy that was completely foreign to Peter and Paul and company).

I can understand if someone disagrees with the doctrine of transubstantiation, but I don't see how one can fault the method used to come up with the explanation yet accept that same method used in the 4th century re: the Trinity.

This is a highly debatable point, one that I think has little support from the historical record.

I would agree that it is unfair to describe Orthodox theology as "stagnant". In fact, my point is that I think history shows that BOTH Eastern and Western theology has developed over the past 2,000 years, which is why I don't understand it when Eastern Christians proclaim to believe otherwise.

I simply don't see historical evidence to support the belief that our (Eastern and Western) understanding of the faith is identical to the understanding of 1st century Christians. Note that I do believe we hold to the same faith of the apostles. I would just say that our understanding of the faith has grown over the centuries, like a seed that has grown into a mature tree.

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.

I posted this on another thread. It is my understanding of "Development of Doctrine", according to the mind of the Universal Catholic Church (all 21 "sui juris" Churches). Hope it is helpful.

Deacon Robert

As to the issue of "doctrinal development", I think there is a lot of misunderstanding on this topic. Modernists (i.e. Modernist heretics) in the Western Church see this as a "carte blanche" to change content of Church teachings. Many Eastern Orthodox critics of Catholicism are criticising that notion of "doctrinal development" as if it represented authentic Catholic teaching, when it does not. The authentic notion of "doctrinal development" is that the Deposit of Faith handed down to us, down through the ages, is unchanging, because it is from God. However, it is akin to a gold mine, and that we are still "mining" the gold. In other words, we are still being "brought up to speed" on the fullness of Divine Revelation, given our human condition. One important aspect of this notion is that "doctrinal developments" can NEVER contradict those matters of Faith and Morals that have already been defined. Just hoping to add some light on these issues.

Deacon Robert,

I am in complete agreement with that statement. I like your analogy of a "goldmine", but that is truly what the Deposit of Faith 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.

An example of what I mean can be seen in St. John Damascene's "De Fide Orthodoxa" where he speaks of the difference between the Son's generation and of the Spirit's procession, and then says: ". . . we have learned that there is a difference between generation and procession, but the nature of that difference we in no wise understand." [St. John Damascene, "De Fide Orthodoxa," Book I, Chapter 8]

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.

Apotheoun,

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.

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.

It is important to avoid anachronistic readings of the past. The modern notion of "doctrinal development" is just that, modern.

Thus, the fact that Eastern Orthodox theologians see dangers in the modern Roman position on this issue is not surprising. Sadly the tendency in the West is to simply assume that its position, no matter how new or innovative it may be, is simply right.

The difference is this: Trinitarian theology does not explain what God is, nor does it explain -- through the use of natural reason -- how God exists, what the revealed theology of the Church tells us is that God exists.

Both East and West affirm that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ, but East simply refrains from trying to say how this mystery occurs, that is, it does not try to explain the workings of what is ineffable.

In what way is 'transubstantiation' describing how? It seems to me that is simply states that a change does occur not just to our senses, but to the object itself. That still doesn't say how, except to confirm that it is a Mystery.

Also, terms like 'homoousious' were unknown to the Apostles yet we know they believed the underlying meaning behind the words.

What is wrong in using non-ecclesial language to clarify the Church's position? Afterall, the first Council was in Hebrew/Aramaic, Nicaea used Greek.