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

If you accept the distinction between essence and energy, which is a fundamental dogmatic truth of Byzantine theology, then the idea of a substantial change in anything becomes pointless, since essence (or substance) is unknowable.

I don't see any reason why Christians need to use Aristotelian metaphysics in order to speak about the Eucharist.

It is enough to say that the Eucharist is the very body and blood of Christ.

P.S. - Westerners of course are free to use whatever terms are traditional in their theology.

Certainly the combined form of that word (i.e., homo - ousios) is not found in scripture, but "ousia" and even "hypostasis" and "prosopon" are found in scripture.

Of course. The language of the real presence is no more "explanatory" of the how of mystery than the language of Incarnation or Trinity. It is only a way of expressing what is that can be used to separate out other competing understandings of real presence.

The idea of the whole and essential Person of the Christ being really and truly present in the consecrated species comes directly out of St Symeon the New Theologian. The eventual borrowing of the language of substance and accident came with conscious regard to St. Symeon's expansive teachings on Eucharistic presence, that were a synthesis of hundreds of years of magisterial teaching in the Church to that point.

It is interesting that in the centuries prior to St. Symeon's life and work, the appelation New Theologian was used to mark one whose teachings were heterodox or heretical. It was the controversial life of St. Symeon and the remarkable developments of doctrinal thinking that came from his mind and soul that gave respectability to the name New Theologian.

Eli

I'm not Eastern or Orthodox so I'm having a bit of difficultly understanding where you are coming from becuae I see things so differently.

One of the first things I was taught when looking at the Trinity is not to impose modern understanding of the term 'person' onto discussion on the Trinity. We sepnt the largest part of the time going back and learning the philosophy getting to grips with terms that have quite specific meanings. I don't mind admitting that I found it hard on times - and to be honest with my forgetfulness if I had to explain them to someone else I'd have to go back to the beginning again.

Its the same with the term 'Mystery' I have an understanding the term - but others don't. If I reponded to a thread 'all Catholics are cannibals' - by saying 'its a Mystery' I'm just liable to confuse the issue if the person doesn't understand the term. sayings somthings a mystery can be understood in quite a negative way.

People are always constrained by the culture they live in the and the philosophy it embodies.Its very important to explain to people in ways they understand and this means understanding and occasionally using the philosophy that is around. Perhaps it is just me but when I read the above on transubstantiation I read 'Aquinas'. My summa misses out the questions. but it seems from other sites aquinas was attempting to answer questions raised about the faith (even if it was just by himself. might not seem relevant now - neo thomists would disagree - and it might be a fair question why is 'transubstantiation' still taught as Aquinas. Is it possible that the reformation would have happened sooner if Aquinas didn't print what he did, or would things have been worse somehow - who knows.

I do try, but am not always successful, in trying to separate what is actual church teaching (often its a very limited 'positive' statement 'We believe in one God' (or statements), to lots of anathema's, 'negative' statments, God is not....) and how Saints and theologians have tried to express and explain and interpret these statements and beliefs down the centuries, because I believe that it is often the explainations that people disagree on and they can change over time but the actual church teachings can't.

I'd also like to express that after reading around what the 'reformers' taught about the Real Presence that I don't think that theywere right in what they said, some to denying the Real Presence at all, to the extent that today some who call themselves Christians don't even attempt to have any type of Eucharistic celebration at all,quite sad really when I think about it

cariad

And I would say the same about the East. Except in their case it is believe that something is right simply because it is ancient regardless of any evidence to the contrary. If the West is guilty of rationalism, then the East is guilty of fideism.

Jason

I think that something needs to be clarified:

What exactly is the point of this thread? Is it to find out what Eastern theologians believe about dogma, or is the purpose of this thread to impose a Western viewpoint on the East?

Now, with those questions out of the way, here is a quotation from Fr. Florovsky about dogma that touches on the point under discussion:

The problem is that Westerners normally approach the dogmatic decrees of the councils as kataphatic statements about God, when in fact they are apophatic. Thus, in the Byzantine tradition the use of specific terms in the dogmatic horos of a council does not involve a development of the dogma in question, but is merely the explication of what is already believed by the Church.

In light of what I posted above Re:the Catholic understanding of "Development of Doctrine" (i.e. the notion of the Deposit of Faith being unchanging, but also akin to a gold mine which we must mine for the development of our understanding), and in light of the above statement by Florovsky, which I find little to dispute with, it probably would probably have been better if the term "Development of the Human Understanding of Doctrine" had been employed. This would eliminate any possibility of a Modernist "spin" on the issue. Clarity of expression is of the utmost importance.

Please excuse me for seeming to contradict you.

Would you say the same for the use of the names and phrases such as Real Presence, Trinity, Incarnation? Does the Church circumlocute every single naming habit she has just so as to not give fodder to her enemies or confuse her friends who do not bother or even perhaps care to learn her meanings?

Should we comb through our liturgies and remove every possibly confusing referent? or translate anew every time someone's nose gets out of joint over something that they find unclear?

Do we change our manner of speaking every time we are accused falsely?

That's a slippery slope that you are flirting with there. Accommodationism has far more dangers than benefits, expecially when one accommodates under unfriendly fire.

And just for the record, the assertion that the Catholic Church receives doctrine in a stricly appophatic mode is simply false. Even her formal catechetical language, never mind the language of her saints and doctors, stresses mystery over knowing. Now there is a case where unfriendly fire chooses to ignore the language.

What would you do there, Deacon? Instruct the printers to employ bold type?

Eli

My point in creating this thread was to understand the Eastern view of the "development" of doctrine. History shows that there has been change, whether that is "clarification" or "development" or "novelty" or what not, and I knew that most Easterns' reject the Newman explanation of development of doctrine, so I wanted to understand how Eastern Christians resolved what appears to me to be a dilemma. To understand the Eastern viewpoint better, I feel the need to challenge what I see as weaknesses in the Eastern position, so that I can fully understand it.

I have no desire to impose upon Eastern Christians the Western viewpoint, however.

Agreed. The vast majority of Church Fathers proclaimed that orthodoxy did not change, and that heresy was novelty or "development".

However, an unbiased view of Christian doctrine shows that it has "changed" over the centuries, regardless of what the Church Fathers proclaimed. Now "changed" can mean many things:

1) Clarification: doctrines were simply publicly defined to clear up any possible confusions with assumed beliefs, but the actual doctrines changed in no way over time.

2) Deepened understanding: doctrines evolved naturally over the course of time as Christians continued to contemplate the divine mysteries given to us by Christ and the apostles.

3) Novelty: doctrines were created over time by the Church based on influences from other religions, cultures, etc.

Position (3) is clearly heretical and rightly condemned by both East and West. The West, I believe, holds to position (2). It has always seemed to me that the East holds to position (1), but possibly I have been mistaken in thinking that, based on what has been said here. Quite frankly, I don't see historical evidence that can back up position (1), which is why I originally brought up this question in the first place.

Dear Francis,

This does not sound quite right to my "ear."

Your number one and two are not as separate and distinct as you are presenting them here. Clarification leads to deepened understanding so I would not take them separately. Clarification also aids in explaining the doctrine in the face of competing claims or against claims intent upon even greater destruction in the minds of people or peoples.

I would not think that the Catholic Church in any official discussion would frame things as you have here.

Eli

You have a good point. But, in general, I hate ambiguities (that was one of the "criticisms" leveled against me by the shrinks when I had to go through the mandated psychological testing for ordinandi-the Bishop read the criticism in front of me and said "this is supposed to be a negative?"). My fear is that the term "Development of Doctrine" might be misconstrued by honest outsiders to mean what the Modernists mean it to be, as opposed to how Newman understood it. Some on the outside of the Catholic Church think they are attacking Modernism
when they reject this term. It is not those of bad will with whom I'm concerned, it is those who may be of good will for whom I don't want there to be any confusion. But, your point is well taken, nonetheless.

Is the Person of the Incarnation unknowable? Is the human nature of the Person of the Incarnation unknowable? Are there two Persons? one knowable and one unknowable?

I fear your "reading" of Eucharistic theology here, for both east and west, unless meant as humor, is severely limited.

Palamas speaks of both the apophatic and cataphatic modes in eastern theology, and admits of both, and says that the Divine Nature transcends both. But he never said any such ludicrous thing that we cannot know the Divine Person of the Christ, nor that we cannot know the human nature of the Divine Person of the Christ.

Furthermore St. Symeon the New Theologian introduces the language of the body, blood and soul and divinity of the Christ present in the Eucharist and it is THAT fullness of truth which Aquinas, and those before, him sought to capture with the employment of trans- rather than con-substantiation.

One need not "know" the substance in its fullness in order to teach that the Christ taught that his full presence, body blood soul and divinity would be present in Eucharist.

Only IF no one challenges you.

I still think we should send all the Arians left in the world to Moscow.

Christ is Risen! He is indeed Risen!

Eli

Eli,

Yes, I may have done a poor job of explaining myself, which led to it not "sounding" right.

I'm just trying to determine the range of meanings that people intend when they speak of the "development" or "clarification" of doctrine over time. It seems clear that East and West do not see eye-to-eye in this regard. Then, after determining exactly what everyone means, I'm trying to determine how what we believe (both East and West) matches up with the actual historical record.

It is in reading threads like this one that I become pessimistic about the chances that there will ever be a restoration of communion between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches.

The faith is once for all delivered to the saints, it does not "change" or "develop" because we do not now believe things that were not believed by the Apostles. Francis, I think that you are confusing changes in "terminology" with "development." If you read texts on dogma written before the mid 20th century, you will note that they are called, histories of dogma, and only after Newman's vitalistic ideas took hold do you begin to see books about the development of dogma. I fear the West has become trapped in Newman's dream of doctrinal development, only that dream is now becoming corrupted by relativistic notions. Because I've actually talked to Catholics who think that development in doctrine means that things once believe can be rejected. Rather foolish I know, but that is what one gets from using language like "development" or "evolution" in theology.

The East, as Fr. Florovsky indicates, does not believe in the development of dogmas, now that may be hard for a Western to grasp, but that is the truth.