Hi everyone,

I had an interesting thought the other day that I wanted to share with you and see what you thought of it. Many of my Orthodox friends are constantly telling me that the Orthodox do not have development of doctrine. I know there are some Orthodox, who admit that there is development of doctrine in the East but not as it is in the West. However, the majority of Orthodox will not admit this.

My thought centered around this idea because I was talking with a Latin Catholic and was telling him that the age of the Fathers has never closed in the East. He thought that belied, in some ways, the idea that there was no development of doctrine in the East and everything was purely patristic. I said well not exactly, but he went on to say that if the more contemporary Fathers had nothing new to say, then why would anyone read them. (I thought that was a good point.)

Now, if you look at someone like St. Gregory Palamas, it seems to me that he very much added to the understanding of the doctrine on the Essence and Energies of God that was discussed by the Cappadocian Fathers. It seems to me that he developed that doctrine. However, it feels different to me than what is commonly seen as development of doctrine in the West. (Perhaps "feel" is not the best word, but it's how I experience it.)

This led me to an idea about the "Development of Doctrine". It seems to me that development of doctrine exists both in the East and the West, but the difference comes in this. In the West, that development always is moving forward. It is moving towards a definition, towards a conclusion, towards a codification. Of course, this is only seen in hindsight, but that seems to reflect the Western Liturgy as well as the Western approach to the world, etc.

Whereas in the East, the development of doctrine moves downward. It takes on the character of taking a Truth that has already been defined and accepted, and deepening our understanding of it. It has a more static feel to it, and this reflects the Eastern Liturgies a little more as well as the Eastern approach to God etc. Perhaps, the Palamite controversy is not the best example, but it seems to me that is what St. Gregory was doing. He wasn't moving the doctrine towards a definition but just trying to deepen the understanding of something that was already accepted and, in the process, defend it against attacks.

I would posit that what in the West is called "Development of Doctrine" should be called "Elaboration of Doctrine" in the East.

What are your thoughts on this? As I continue to seek to live a fully Eastern Christian life in union with Rome, these are questions that I am seeking to understand. Thanks in advance for all your help.

Yours in Christ,
Scott