OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 25, 2014, 04:07:08 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Fundamental Idea Behind Doctrinal Development  (Read 4067 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« on: January 08, 2011, 08:15:32 PM »

I've been rereading Development of Christian Doctrine by Jaroslav Pelikan, and wanted to make sure I understood correctly the Catholic approach to the development of doctrine. As Pelikan seems to explain it, 1) a doctrine does not necessarily need to be explicitly mentioned in Scripture, but it should be consistent with Scripture; and 2) a doctrine can be legit if it has a necessary, as well as natural or logical, place in the web of Christian beliefs. To use Pelikan's own words, he says, in part:

"Thus a development was authentic if it stood in a systematic connection with other previous developments, forming one whole with them or being deducible from them. As the presence of an invisible planet could be established from the charting of a solar system, so the composition of the doctrinal system could validate what appeared to be a new doctrine by demonstrating its necessary place in the logical sequence." - p. 21

Is this an accurate understanding of the Catholic conception of doctrinal development? Also, must a doctrine be necessary in the web or sequence of beliefs? or would it be enough for a doctrine to simply be the natural or logical doctrine filling a certain place in the web of beliefs?
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #1 on: January 10, 2011, 03:35:12 AM »

Anyone?  police
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 10, 2011, 12:28:33 PM »

I've been rereading Development of Christian Doctrine by Jaroslav Pelikan, and wanted to make sure I understood correctly the Catholic approach to the development of doctrine. As Pelikan seems to explain it, 1) a doctrine does not necessarily need to be explicitly mentioned in Scripture, but it should be consistent with Scripture; and 2) a doctrine can be legit if it has a necessary, as well as natural or logical, place in the web of Christian beliefs. To use Pelikan's own words, he says, in part:

"Thus a development was authentic if it stood in a systematic connection with other previous developments, forming one whole with them or being deducible from them. As the presence of an invisible planet could be established from the charting of a solar system, so the composition of the doctrinal system could validate what appeared to be a new doctrine by demonstrating its necessary place in the logical sequence." - p. 21

Is this an accurate understanding of the Catholic conception of doctrinal development? Also, must a doctrine be necessary in the web or sequence of beliefs? or would it be enough for a doctrine to simply be the natural or logical doctrine filling a certain place in the web of beliefs?

Yes.  This appears to be largely true.  I was hoping to get a look at some texts that I have that might offer more insights but I have not had the time yet.  But what is here is a good basic start.  I was taught that none of our theological or doctrinal thinking can be good or right if it contradicts Scripture.   That is not quite the same as Prof. Pelikan's line but it is still compatible with it.

The Core doctrines are Christological and Trinitarian and have been pretty well set in the first thousand years...What comes now are things that are supportive of those Trinitarian and Christological teachings or that are an inspired and reasonable filling out of the wholeness of our theology and doctrine.  So that also fits...very roughly speaking!   There is no hard and fast principle of necessity that I know of. 

Conformity with Scripture is the first and strongest point of departure...or so it seems to me...but that is MY statement here not something that I've seen in any formal discussion or document.
Logged

Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #3 on: February 03, 2011, 10:43:21 PM »

Somehow I missed you post back in January, sorry! Thank you much Smiley

In the book mentioned above by Jaroslav Pelikan he says that (even at that time, decades ago) there had been a lot of discussion about this subject. Does anyone know of a book that sort of sums up where thought on this subject is at the moment?
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 520



WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2011, 01:10:11 AM »

See Aidan Nichols, From Newman to Congar: The Idea of Doctrinal Development from the Victorians to the Second Vatican Council
Logged

Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2011, 01:14:23 AM »

See Aidan Nichols, From Newman to Congar: The Idea of Doctrinal Development from the Victorians to the Second Vatican Council

Father,

If it isn't too presumptuous or rude, may I ask exactly how helpful/detailed it is? I only ask because Amazon.com is asking $75 for a used copy. Maybe I could find a cheaper copy somewhere, but if not, that's a steep price to pay for a book. Smiley
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 520



WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 04, 2011, 01:44:44 AM »

I have not read the book, but it comes highly recommended.  I suggest that you get a couple through Inter-library Loan before you consider purchasing it.
Logged

Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #7 on: February 04, 2011, 01:47:28 AM »

I have not read the book, but it comes highly recommended.  I suggest that you get a couple through Inter-library Loan before you consider purchasing it.

I hadn't thought of that! Thanks for the suggestion Smiley
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 04, 2011, 02:09:03 AM »

The Roman Catholic Dr. Michael Liccione is always talking about the issue in the blog world.
http://mliccione.blogspot.com/ (Sacramentum Vitae)

Another person in the blog world that knows alot about the issue(from a Roman Catholic and Protestant perspective) is David:
http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/ (Articuli Fidei)
« Last Edit: February 04, 2011, 02:14:16 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #9 on: February 04, 2011, 02:22:05 AM »

Somehow I missed you post back in January, sorry! Thank you much Smiley

In the book mentioned above by Jaroslav Pelikan he says that (even at that time, decades ago) there had been a lot of discussion about this subject. Does anyone know of a book that sort of sums up where thought on this subject is at the moment?
Pelikan wrote the book in question when still a Protestant.  There is a review of the idea from the Orthodox viewpoint, several years after his reception into Orthodoxy and the year (2005) before his death, in Andrew Louthe "Is Development of Doctrine a Valid Category for Orthodox Theology?" in Orthodoxy & Western culture: a collection of essays honoring Jaroslav Pelikan in his 80th birthday. By Jaroslav Pelikan, Valerie R. Hotchkiss, Patrick Henry
http://books.google.com/books?id=13DRvCcJUvcC&pg=PA45&dq=pelikan+development+of+doctrine&hl=en&ei=HpNLTaWfIInpgAey7rjcDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=pelikan%20development%20of%20doctrine&f=false
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #10 on: February 04, 2011, 02:25:59 AM »

Thank you both for the links Smiley
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #11 on: February 05, 2011, 05:57:42 PM »

http://www.trosch.org/the/ottintro.htm

This page might help...

Quote
§ 5. The Development of Dogma
1. Heretical Notion of Dogmatic Development

       The Liberal Protestant concept of dogma (cf. A. von Harnack) as well as Modernism (ef. A. Loisy) assumes a substantial development of dogmas, so that the content of dogma changes radically in the course of time. Modernism poses the challenge: "Progress in the sciences demands that the conceptions of the Christian teaching of God, Creation, Revelation, Person of the Incarnate Word, Redemption, be remoulded" (cf. D 2064). Loisy declares: "As progress in science (philosophy) demands a new concept of the problem of God, so progress in historical research gives rise to a new concept of the problem of Christ and the Church." (Autour d'un petit livre, Paris 1903, XXIV.) In this view there are no fixed and constant dogmas; their concept is always developing. The Vatican Council condemned Anton Günther's († 1863) application of the idea of development in this sense to dogmas as heretical: Si quis dixerit, fieri posse, ut dogmatibus ab Ecclesia propositis aliquando secundum progressum scientiae sensus tribuendus sit alius ab eo, quem intellexit et intelligit Ecclesia. If anybody says that by reason of the progress of science, a meaning must be given to dogmas of the Church other than that which the Church understood and understands them to have let him be anathema. A.S. D 1818. In the Encyclical "Humani Generis" (1950), Pope Pius XII rejected that dogmatic relativsm, which would demand that dogmas should be expressed in the concepts of the philosophy ruling at any particular time, and enveloped in the stream of philosophical development: "This conception," he says, "makes dogma a reed, which is driven hither and thither by the wind" (D 3012).

       The ground for the immutability of dogmas lies in the Divine origin of the Truths which they express. Divine Truth is as immutable as God Himself : "The truth of the Lord remaineth for ever" (Ps. 116, 2). "Heaven and earth shall pass away : but my word shall not pass" (Mk. 13, 31).

2. Development of Dogmas in the Catholic Sense

a)   From the material side of dogma, that is, in the communication of the Truths of Revelation to humanity, a substantial growth took place in human history until Revelation reached its apogee and conclusion in Christ (cf. Hebr. I, I).
       St. Gregory the Great says: "With the progress of the times the knowledge of the spiritual Fathers increased; for, in the Science of God, Moses was more instructed than Abraham, the Prophets more than Moses, the Apostles more than the Prophets" (in Ezechielem lib. 2, horn. 4, 12).
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #12 on: February 05, 2011, 06:03:26 PM »

Thanks! Smiley I'll have to look up Humani Generis and perhaps some of the other works mentioned as well.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #13 on: February 05, 2011, 06:08:34 PM »

Thanks! Smiley I'll have to look up Humani Generis and perhaps some of the other works mentioned as well.

Please note this page is hosted by an anti-Catholic website but it's the only one that I could find that had Ludwig Ott's page on it.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #14 on: February 05, 2011, 06:10:28 PM »

Any idea what the St. Gregory the Great reference is... "Ezechielem lib. 2, horn. 4, 12"?
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #15 on: February 05, 2011, 06:17:39 PM »

Any idea what the St. Gregory the Great reference is... "Ezechielem lib. 2, horn. 4, 12"?

I actually have a hard copy of Ludwig Ott's work at home but I'm at work right now and don't have access to it. I could post more detail later tonight.

Here is something else: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_doctrine

Newman's Essay on the Development of Doctrine http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/
« Last Edit: February 05, 2011, 06:23:14 PM by ignatius » Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #16 on: February 06, 2011, 12:39:13 AM »

I actually have a hard copy of Ludwig Ott's work at home but I'm at work right now and don't have access to it. I could post more detail later tonight.

Here is something else: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_doctrine

Newman's Essay on the Development of Doctrine http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/

Thanks Smiley Regarding the phrase earlier, was it instead perhaps supposed to be "Ezechielem lib. 2, hom. 4, 12" (ie. "hom" for homily rather than "horn")?
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #17 on: February 06, 2011, 04:58:54 PM »

Fr. John Behr spoke about the Orthodox rejection of doctrinal development in the article linked below:

A Talk given at the University of North Carolina - by Fr. John Behr
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #18 on: February 06, 2011, 05:20:25 PM »

Thanks for the link Smiley  One thing that I'd like to comment on, though, is that I'm not sure that Catholics would disagree with the idea that "there simply is, therefore, no such thing as dogmatic development. What there is, of course, is ever new, more detailed and comprehensive explanations elaborated in defense of one and the same faith". Two of Newman's criteria were that there had to be early anticipation and support for a "development," and that there had to be a continuity with principles that had come down from ancient Christianity (either in written Scripture or unwritten traditions from the Apostles). I'm not sure that development of doctrine is really the best terminology, as it tends to give the impression that Catholics think that doctrines morph over time, whereas (if I understand correctly) they only believe that God reveals more clearly truths and facts to us as we move through time. If I'm wrong I hope one of the Catholics will correct me!
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #19 on: February 06, 2011, 05:42:24 PM »

Fr. John Behr spoke about the Orthodox rejection of doctrinal development in the article linked below:

A Talk given at the University of North Carolina - by Fr. John Behr
The first seven Ecumenical Councils were doctrinal developments.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #20 on: February 06, 2011, 05:42:24 PM »

Thanks for the link Smiley  One thing that I'd like to comment on, though, is that I'm not sure that Catholics would disagree with the idea that "there simply is, therefore, no such thing as dogmatic development. What there is, of course, is ever new, more detailed and comprehensive explanations elaborated in defense of one and the same faith". Two of Newman's criteria were that there had to be early anticipation and support for a "development," and that there had to be a continuity with principles that had come down from ancient Christianity (either in written Scripture or unwritten traditions from the Apostles). I'm not sure that development of doctrine is really the best terminology, as it tends to give the impression that Catholics think that doctrines morph over time, whereas (if I understand correctly) they only believe that God reveals more clearly truths and facts to us as we move through time. If I'm wrong I hope one of the Catholics will correct me!

No educated Catholic would disagree with you here.  FWIW
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #21 on: February 06, 2011, 06:14:22 PM »

Fr. John Behr spoke about the Orthodox rejection of doctrinal development in the article linked below:

A Talk given at the University of North Carolina - by Fr. John Behr
The first seven Ecumenical Councils were doctrinal developments.
No, the heresies they condemned were.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #22 on: February 06, 2011, 06:15:00 PM »

Well at least I'm not on the wrong track then... though I have yet to dive into the meat of things (Cardinal Newman's own words)...

One other thing, I said "Newman" in the last post when I should have said "Cardinal Newman". I'm not sure if it's forum policy that we must give appropriate titles to non-Orthodox as well as Orthodox, but I just wanted to mention it anyway.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,268



« Reply #23 on: February 07, 2011, 01:42:26 PM »

Fr. John Behr spoke about the Orthodox rejection of doctrinal development in the article linked below:

A Talk given at the University of North Carolina - by Fr. John Behr
The first seven Ecumenical Councils were doctrinal developments.
I think it's worth mentioning that the heresies condemned at the Councils were doctrinal developments. Wink

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #24 on: February 07, 2011, 02:22:27 PM »

No, the heresies they condemned were.

I think it's worth mentioning that the heresies condemned at the Councils were doctrinal developments. Wink

In Christ,
Andrew
No, the doctrines defending orthodox Christian teaching were developments. The heresies were outright innovations.
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,885



« Reply #25 on: February 07, 2011, 03:00:53 PM »

It may be a good thing if we were to read the relevant parts of Father Behr's address cited above.

"If tradition is essentially the right interpretation of Scripture, then it cannot change -- and this means, it can neither grow nor develop. A tradition with a potential for growth ultimately undermines the Gospel itself -- it leaves open the possibility for further revelation, and therefore the Gospel would no longer be sure and certain. If our faith is one and the same as that of the apostles, then, as Irenaeus claimed, it is equally immune from improvement by articulate or speculative thinkers as well as from diminution by inarticulate believers (Against the Heresies, 1.10.2). We must take seriously the famous saying of St. Vincent of L�rins: "We must hold what has been believed everywhere, always and by all" (Commonitorium, 2).

From an Orthodox perspective, there simply is, therefore, no such thing as dogmatic development. What there is, of course, is ever new, more detailed and comprehensive explanations elaborated in defense of one and the same faith -- responding, each time, to a particular context, a particular controversy etc. But it is one and the same faith that has been believed from the beginning -- the continuity of the correct interpretation of Scripture. And for this reason, the Councils, as Fr. John Meyendorff pointed out [2], never formally endorsed any aspect of theology as dogma which is not a direct (and correct) interpretation of the history of God described in Scripture: only those aspects were defined as dogma which pertain directly to the Gospel. So, for instance, the only aspect pertaining to the Virgin Mary that was ever recognized as dogma is that she is Theotokos -- "Mother of God" -- for she gave birth to our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ -- it is something which pertains to the Incarnation, rather than to Mary herself. Whilst individual theologians have speculated about other aspects concerning the Virgin herself, and her glorification, items not directly pertaining to the Gospel of Christ's work of salvation, such as the Assumption and the Immaculate conception, have never been held to have the status of dogma in the Orthodox Church."
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #26 on: February 07, 2011, 06:27:13 PM »

No, the heresies they condemned were.

I think it's worth mentioning that the heresies condemned at the Councils were doctrinal developments. Wink

In Christ,
Andrew
No, the doctrines defending orthodox Christian teaching were developments. The heresies were outright innovations.
Judging from the Vatican's track record, same thing.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #27 on: February 07, 2011, 08:43:11 PM »

I have a question for those who believe in development of doctrine:

Mardukm used to claim that, for instance the IC was a theologoumen.  Did it rise up over time to the status of dogma? Can theologoumen become doctrine and then dogma?

I've seen the degrees of "theological certitude" that the Vatican's theologians have set up. Does something move up in theological certitude until it becomes infallible?  What propels this motion.

I am of the opinion, in case if their is a question, that if something is a theologoumen in the days of the Apostles, it pretty much will stay a theologoumen until Judgment Day (Judgement Day for those of you under Her Britannic Majesty). I can't recall anything that has gone from theogoumen to dogma (and btw, I do make a distinction between doctine and dogma).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #28 on: February 08, 2011, 02:22:19 AM »

No, the heresies they condemned were.

I think it's worth mentioning that the heresies condemned at the Councils were doctrinal developments. Wink

In Christ,
Andrew
No, the doctrines defending orthodox Christian teaching were developments. The heresies were outright innovations.
Judging from the Vatican's track record, same thing.
Good thing your judgment means nothing.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #29 on: February 08, 2011, 12:56:23 PM »

No, the heresies they condemned were.

I think it's worth mentioning that the heresies condemned at the Councils were doctrinal developments. Wink

In Christ,
Andrew
No, the doctrines defending orthodox Christian teaching were developments. The heresies were outright innovations.
Judging from the Vatican's track record, same thing.
Good thing your judgment means nothing.
AMEN!!!
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #30 on: February 08, 2011, 12:57:32 PM »

I have a question for those who believe in development of doctrine:

Mardukm used to claim that, for instance the IC was a theologoumen.  Did it rise up over time to the status of dogma? Can theologoumen become doctrine and then dogma?

I've seen the degrees of "theological certitude" that the Vatican's theologians have set up. Does something move up in theological certitude until it becomes infallible?  What propels this motion.

I am of the opinion, in case if their is a question, that if something is a theologoumen in the days of the Apostles, it pretty much will stay a theologoumen until Judgment Day (Judgement Day for those of you under Her Britannic Majesty). I can't recall anything that has gone from theogoumen to dogma (and btw, I do make a distinction between doctine and dogma).
Should we bother engaging you on this, or are you going to play the part of the sophist? Seriously, let me know so that I don't end up wasting my time answering your questions if it's pointless.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #31 on: February 08, 2011, 12:59:58 PM »

No, the heresies they condemned were.

I think it's worth mentioning that the heresies condemned at the Councils were doctrinal developments. Wink

In Christ,
Andrew
No, the doctrines defending orthodox Christian teaching were developments. The heresies were outright innovations.
Judging from the Vatican's track record, same thing.
Good thing your judgment means nothing.
The judgement isn't mine
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #32 on: February 08, 2011, 01:00:33 PM »

And now from the corner....
No, the heresies they condemned were.

I think it's worth mentioning that the heresies condemned at the Councils were doctrinal developments. Wink

In Christ,
Andrew
No, the doctrines defending orthodox Christian teaching were developments. The heresies were outright innovations.
Judging from the Vatican's track record, same thing.
Good thing your judgment means nothing.
AMEN!!!
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #33 on: February 08, 2011, 01:01:36 PM »

I have a question for those who believe in development of doctrine:

Mardukm used to claim that, for instance the IC was a theologoumen.  Did it rise up over time to the status of dogma? Can theologoumen become doctrine and then dogma?

I've seen the degrees of "theological certitude" that the Vatican's theologians have set up. Does something move up in theological certitude until it becomes infallible?  What propels this motion.

I am of the opinion, in case if their is a question, that if something is a theologoumen in the days of the Apostles, it pretty much will stay a theologoumen until Judgment Day (Judgement Day for those of you under Her Britannic Majesty). I can't recall anything that has gone from theogoumen to dogma (and btw, I do make a distinction between doctine and dogma).
Should we bother engaging you on this, or are you going to play the part of the sophist? Seriously, let me know so that I don't end up wasting my time answering your questions if it's pointless.
If you can't defend the indefensible, everyone who reads this will understand.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #34 on: February 08, 2011, 01:02:49 PM »

I have a question for those who believe in development of doctrine:

Mardukm used to claim that, for instance the IC was a theologoumen.  Did it rise up over time to the status of dogma? Can theologoumen become doctrine and then dogma?

I've seen the degrees of "theological certitude" that the Vatican's theologians have set up. Does something move up in theological certitude until it becomes infallible?  What propels this motion.

I am of the opinion, in case if their is a question, that if something is a theologoumen in the days of the Apostles, it pretty much will stay a theologoumen until Judgment Day (Judgement Day for those of you under Her Britannic Majesty). I can't recall anything that has gone from theogoumen to dogma (and btw, I do make a distinction between doctine and dogma).
Should we bother engaging you on this, or are you going to play the part of the sophist? Seriously, let me know so that I don't end up wasting my time answering your questions if it's pointless.
If you can't defend the indefensible, everyone who reads this will understand.
Nevermind, you are going to act like a twelve year old from the get go. Obviously it wasn't a real question on your part, but baiting.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #35 on: February 08, 2011, 01:08:30 PM »

I have a question for those who believe in development of doctrine:

Mardukm used to claim that, for instance the IC was a theologoumen.  Did it rise up over time to the status of dogma? Can theologoumen become doctrine and then dogma?

I've seen the degrees of "theological certitude" that the Vatican's theologians have set up. Does something move up in theological certitude until it becomes infallible?  What propels this motion.

I am of the opinion, in case if their is a question, that if something is a theologoumen in the days of the Apostles, it pretty much will stay a theologoumen until Judgment Day (Judgement Day for those of you under Her Britannic Majesty). I can't recall anything that has gone from theogoumen to dogma (and btw, I do make a distinction between doctine and dogma).
Should we bother engaging you on this, or are you going to play the part of the sophist? Seriously, let me know so that I don't end up wasting my time answering your questions if it's pointless.
If you can't defend the indefensible, everyone who reads this will understand.
Nevermind, you are going to act like a twelve year old from the get go. Obviously it wasn't a real question on your part, but baiting.
So you have no answer.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #36 on: February 08, 2011, 02:18:45 PM »

I have a question for those who believe in development of doctrine:

Mardukm used to claim that, for instance the IC was a theologoumen.  Did it rise up over time to the status of dogma? Can theologoumen become doctrine and then dogma?

I've seen the degrees of "theological certitude" that the Vatican's theologians have set up. Does something move up in theological certitude until it becomes infallible?  What propels this motion.

I am of the opinion, in case if their is a question, that if something is a theologoumen in the days of the Apostles, it pretty much will stay a theologoumen until Judgment Day (Judgement Day for those of you under Her Britannic Majesty). I can't recall anything that has gone from theogoumen to dogma (and btw, I do make a distinction between doctine and dogma).

This is too legalistic an approach.  It is fine to set this up this way for a systematics class in an academic setting where academic analysis and comparison are the goals, but in the living breathing call to teach in the Church, this kind of parsing serves no useful purpose. 
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #37 on: February 08, 2011, 02:33:17 PM »

I have a question for those who believe in development of doctrine:

Mardukm used to claim that, for instance the IC was a theologoumen.  Did it rise up over time to the status of dogma? Can theologoumen become doctrine and then dogma?

I've seen the degrees of "theological certitude" that the Vatican's theologians have set up. Does something move up in theological certitude until it becomes infallible?  What propels this motion.

I am of the opinion, in case if their is a question, that if something is a theologoumen in the days of the Apostles, it pretty much will stay a theologoumen until Judgment Day (Judgement Day for those of you under Her Britannic Majesty). I can't recall anything that has gone from theogoumen to dogma (and btw, I do make a distinction between doctine and dogma).

This is too legalistic an approach.  It is fine to set this up this way for a systematics class in an academic setting where academic analysis and comparison are the goals, but in the living breathing call to teach in the Church, this kind of parsing serves no useful purpose. 
How many volumes of this kind of parsing did your "Angelic Doctor" write?

So you have no answer.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #38 on: February 08, 2011, 02:40:58 PM »

I have a question for those who believe in development of doctrine:

Mardukm used to claim that, for instance the IC was a theologoumen.  Did it rise up over time to the status of dogma? Can theologoumen become doctrine and then dogma?

I've seen the degrees of "theological certitude" that the Vatican's theologians have set up. Does something move up in theological certitude until it becomes infallible?  What propels this motion.

I am of the opinion, in case if their is a question, that if something is a theologoumen in the days of the Apostles, it pretty much will stay a theologoumen until Judgment Day (Judgement Day for those of you under Her Britannic Majesty). I can't recall anything that has gone from theogoumen to dogma (and btw, I do make a distinction between doctine and dogma).

This is too legalistic an approach.  It is fine to set this up this way for a systematics class in an academic setting where academic analysis and comparison are the goals, but in the living breathing call to teach in the Church, this kind of parsing serves no useful purpose. 
How many volumes of this kind of parsing did your "Angelic Doctor" write?

So you have no answer.

I am trying politely to tell you that in reality, you do not have a question here.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #39 on: February 08, 2011, 03:12:40 PM »

I have a question for those who believe in development of doctrine:

Mardukm used to claim that, for instance the IC was a theologoumen.  Did it rise up over time to the status of dogma? Can theologoumen become doctrine and then dogma?

I've seen the degrees of "theological certitude" that the Vatican's theologians have set up. Does something move up in theological certitude until it becomes infallible?  What propels this motion.

I am of the opinion, in case if their is a question, that if something is a theologoumen in the days of the Apostles, it pretty much will stay a theologoumen until Judgment Day (Judgement Day for those of you under Her Britannic Majesty). I can't recall anything that has gone from theogoumen to dogma (and btw, I do make a distinction between doctine and dogma).

This is too legalistic an approach.  It is fine to set this up this way for a systematics class in an academic setting where academic analysis and comparison are the goals, but in the living breathing call to teach in the Church, this kind of parsing serves no useful purpose. 
How many volumes of this kind of parsing did your "Angelic Doctor" write?

So you have no answer.

I am trying politely to tell you that in reality, you do not have a question here.
And I'm telling you point blank that in reality you have no answer, here or elsewhere.

odd how we Catholics can pick up Lossky's "The mystical theology of the Eastern Church" as an Orthodox teaching and have no problem in any setting.
http://books.google.com/books?id=dxqvWwPSCSwC&pg=PA151&dq=Lossky+figures+of+the+physical+order&hl=en&ei=LHVRTZOKOsL6lwf6ksngCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
The Vatican's magisterium has Ott and still can't make a coherent defense of the development of its dogma even in an academic setting, let alone living your misty theology.

I will agre with you that reality stands in your way.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #40 on: February 08, 2011, 05:18:09 PM »

I have a question for those who believe in development of doctrine:

Mardukm used to claim that, for instance the IC was a theologoumen.  Did it rise up over time to the status of dogma? Can theologoumen become doctrine and then dogma?

I've seen the degrees of "theological certitude" that the Vatican's theologians have set up. Does something move up in theological certitude until it becomes infallible?  What propels this motion.

I am of the opinion, in case if their is a question, that if something is a theologoumen in the days of the Apostles, it pretty much will stay a theologoumen until Judgment Day (Judgement Day for those of you under Her Britannic Majesty). I can't recall anything that has gone from theogoumen to dogma (and btw, I do make a distinction between doctine and dogma).

This is too legalistic an approach.  It is fine to set this up this way for a systematics class in an academic setting where academic analysis and comparison are the goals, but in the living breathing call to teach in the Church, this kind of parsing serves no useful purpose. 
How many volumes of this kind of parsing did your "Angelic Doctor" write?

So you have no answer.

I am trying politely to tell you that in reality, you do not have a question here.
And I'm telling you point blank that in reality you have no answer, here or elsewhere.

odd how we Catholics can pick up Lossky's "The mystical theology of the Eastern Church" as an Orthodox teaching and have no problem in any setting.

Well ALMOST any setting.  Here's a good Orthodox example of why I said V. Lossky is not the first or last word:

http://en.hilarion.orthodoxia.org/8_4
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #41 on: February 08, 2011, 05:18:09 PM »

In an earlier note I referred to Father Lossky which is not accurate actually though I forget sometimes.  I thought the following few paragraphs from an article were interesting, and might be helpful to some of the Catholics reading who might not be too familiar with the V. Lossky:

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=D594804736EB7B58073922C12E9CC06F.inst1_2b?docId=5001823406


Theology and Spirituality in the Work of Vladimir Lossky.

by Nicholas Lossky

Vladimir Lossky was an exile in the tree sense of the term, not an emigre. His father, the philosopher Nicolas Onufriyevich Lossky, professor in the University of St Petersburg, was expelled from Russia with all his family in November 1922, aboard what came to be known as the famous "philosophical ship". The Lossky family had no intention of emigrating from Russia after the Revolution, considering it only natural that they should share the fate of their people.

In this connection, it is very important to know that as a young student Vladimir Lossky attended the trial of one of the very first martyrs of the Russian Revolution, Metropolitan Benjamin of St Petersburg, now canonized. The young man was profoundly touched by the sight of the crowd of believers prostrating themselves as their bishop was led to his death. My sister Catherine Aslanoff has recently written that "this image of the church, the bishop and his people, united by the blood of the martyr, deeply moved the future theologian".(1) This was the image that rooted him firmly in the church and was at the origin of his faithfulness unswerving, throughout his life, to the persecuted Russian church.

Vladimir Lossky was born on 8 June (new style) 1903, the Monday of Pentecost, the day of the Holy Spirit, in Gottingen, Germany, where his father was spending some time on university business. Although he was only 19 when his family was expelled from Russia, he had already completed two years of studies at the University of St Petersburg. Interested in the French middle ages, he became in Pads the student and friend of the great mediaevalist Ferdinand Lot, professor at the Sorbonne and "agnostic" husband of a well-known Russian theologian, Myrrha Lot-Borodine. Later, he quite naturally became a disciple of Etienne Gilson, with whom he remained close until his death. Gilson wrote the preface of the posthumously published edition of Lossky's thesis on the German mystic Meister Eckhart.

Vladimir Lossky's interest in Eckhart was already aroused during his days at the University of St Petersburg, where Prof. Ivan Mikhailovich Grevs, a specialist in the Western Christian church fathers, drew the young man's attention to Eckhart who was to become the main object of his research, literally until the last day of his life. At the same time, another professor and friend of the family, Lev Platonovich Karsavine, introduced him to the Eastern Christian church fathers. All this, together with N.P. Kondakov's teaching in Prague, where Vladimir Lossky stayed with his family until 1924, forms the source of his attachment to patristic theology (as distinguished from knowledge of the church fathers).

Vladimir Lossky was thus an exiled Russian, and he remained very Russian all his life, though he would say that he had always been a convinced "Westernist" and that being Russian for him meant having a cosmopolitan feeling for the marriage of cultures, being "at home" everywhere in the world. Exile though he was, however, he chose to study and live in France, this very ancient Christian land whose saints he venerated -- as he did St Francis of Assisi, about whom he gave an outstanding lecture while he was still in Prague (thus before 1924). Moreover, all of Vladimir Lossky's theological works were written in French, at the request of his Catholic, Anglican and Protestant friends, that is, in a context of ecumenical dialogue. Similarly, the courses he taught (in dogmatics and church history) at the Institut Saint Denis until 1953 (when P. Eugraphe Kovalevsky broke with the church of Russia) were always given in French, as were his pastoral courses in the Exarchate of the Moscow Patriarchate from then until his death in February 1958. This was done in a spirit of witnessing to an Orthodoxy that was universal and not tied to one culture. Along with Fr Georges Florovsky (with whom he was very close), Vladimir Lossky was clearly among the people who fruitfully developed the heritage of the patristic renaissance which began to take shape in Russia in the mid19th century and which gained momentum in the preparations for the council of Moscow in 1917-18. Interestingly, one of the things the two men had in common was that they were, so to speak, "amateur" theologians. Neither had gone through a seminary or theological academy; both engaged in the "free" study of theology.

One characteristic of Vladimir Lossky's theology that should be underscored is that he was not, ...
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #42 on: February 08, 2011, 08:27:07 PM »

In an earlier note I referred to Father Lossky which is not accurate actually though I forget sometimes.  I thought the following few paragraphs from an article were interesting, and might be helpful to some of the Catholics reading who might not be too familiar with the V. Lossky:

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=D594804736EB7B58073922C12E9CC06F.inst1_2b?docId=5001823406


Theology and Spirituality in the Work of Vladimir Lossky.

by Nicholas Lossky

Vladimir Lossky was an exile in the tree sense of the term, not an emigre. His father, the philosopher Nicolas Onufriyevich Lossky, professor in the University of St Petersburg, was expelled from Russia with all his family in November 1922, aboard what came to be known as the famous "philosophical ship". The Lossky family had no intention of emigrating from Russia after the Revolution, considering it only natural that they should share the fate of their people.

In this connection, it is very important to know that as a young student Vladimir Lossky attended the trial of one of the very first martyrs of the Russian Revolution, Metropolitan Benjamin of St Petersburg, now canonized. The young man was profoundly touched by the sight of the crowd of believers prostrating themselves as their bishop was led to his death. My sister Catherine Aslanoff has recently written that "this image of the church, the bishop and his people, united by the blood of the martyr, deeply moved the future theologian".(1) This was the image that rooted him firmly in the church and was at the origin of his faithfulness unswerving, throughout his life, to the persecuted Russian church.

Vladimir Lossky was born on 8 June (new style) 1903, the Monday of Pentecost, the day of the Holy Spirit, in Gottingen, Germany, where his father was spending some time on university business. Although he was only 19 when his family was expelled from Russia, he had already completed two years of studies at the University of St Petersburg. Interested in the French middle ages, he became in Pads the student and friend of the great mediaevalist Ferdinand Lot, professor at the Sorbonne and "agnostic" husband of a well-known Russian theologian, Myrrha Lot-Borodine. Later, he quite naturally became a disciple of Etienne Gilson, with whom he remained close until his death. Gilson wrote the preface of the posthumously published edition of Lossky's thesis on the German mystic Meister Eckhart.

Vladimir Lossky's interest in Eckhart was already aroused during his days at the University of St Petersburg, where Prof. Ivan Mikhailovich Grevs, a specialist in the Western Christian church fathers, drew the young man's attention to Eckhart who was to become the main object of his research, literally until the last day of his life. At the same time, another professor and friend of the family, Lev Platonovich Karsavine, introduced him to the Eastern Christian church fathers. All this, together with N.P. Kondakov's teaching in Prague, where Vladimir Lossky stayed with his family until 1924, forms the source of his attachment to patristic theology (as distinguished from knowledge of the church fathers).

Vladimir Lossky was thus an exiled Russian, and he remained very Russian all his life, though he would say that he had always been a convinced "Westernist" and that being Russian for him meant having a cosmopolitan feeling for the marriage of cultures, being "at home" everywhere in the world. Exile though he was, however, he chose to study and live in France, this very ancient Christian land whose saints he venerated -- as he did St Francis of Assisi, about whom he gave an outstanding lecture while he was still in Prague (thus before 1924). Moreover, all of Vladimir Lossky's theological works were written in French, at the request of his Catholic, Anglican and Protestant friends, that is, in a context of ecumenical dialogue. Similarly, the courses he taught (in dogmatics and church history) at the Institut Saint Denis until 1953 (when P. Eugraphe Kovalevsky broke with the church of Russia) were always given in French, as were his pastoral courses in the Exarchate of the Moscow Patriarchate from then until his death in February 1958. This was done in a spirit of witnessing to an Orthodoxy that was universal and not tied to one culture. Along with Fr Georges Florovsky (with whom he was very close), Vladimir Lossky was clearly among the people who fruitfully developed the heritage of the patristic renaissance which began to take shape in Russia in the mid19th century and which gained momentum in the preparations for the council of Moscow in 1917-18. Interestingly, one of the things the two men had in common was that they were, so to speak, "amateur" theologians. Neither had gone through a seminary or theological academy; both engaged in the "free" study of theology.

One characteristic of Vladimir Lossky's theology that should be underscored is that he was not, ...
Any reason why you cut off in midsentence?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lossky
Quote
and always refused to be, a direct descendant of the famous Russian "religious philosophy" 1. The term Russian religious philosophy being Neoplatonic as such, having its origin in the works of the slavophil movement and its core concept of sobornost. Which was later used and developed by Vladimir Soloviev.
Vladimir Soloviev. Isn't he one of the darlings of those pushing submission to the Vatican?

« Last Edit: February 08, 2011, 08:32:06 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #43 on: February 08, 2011, 08:32:30 PM »

Vladimir Soloviev. Isn't he one of the darlings of those pushing submission to the Vatican?
No, he's respected by us Catholics who want you to join Christ's Church.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2011, 08:32:40 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #44 on: February 08, 2011, 08:46:04 PM »

I have a question for those who believe in development of doctrine:

Mardukm used to claim that, for instance the IC was a theologoumen.  Did it rise up over time to the status of dogma? Can theologoumen become doctrine and then dogma?

I've seen the degrees of "theological certitude" that the Vatican's theologians have set up. Does something move up in theological certitude until it becomes infallible?  What propels this motion.

I am of the opinion, in case if their is a question, that if something is a theologoumen in the days of the Apostles, it pretty much will stay a theologoumen until Judgment Day (Judgement Day for those of you under Her Britannic Majesty). I can't recall anything that has gone from theogoumen to dogma (and btw, I do make a distinction between doctine and dogma).

This is too legalistic an approach.  It is fine to set this up this way for a systematics class in an academic setting where academic analysis and comparison are the goals, but in the living breathing call to teach in the Church, this kind of parsing serves no useful purpose. 
How many volumes of this kind of parsing did your "Angelic Doctor" write?

So you have no answer.

I am trying politely to tell you that in reality, you do not have a question here.
And I'm telling you point blank that in reality you have no answer, here or elsewhere.

odd how we Catholics can pick up Lossky's "The mystical theology of the Eastern Church" as an Orthodox teaching and have no problem in any setting.

Well ALMOST any setting.

Where is the exception?

Here's a good Orthodox example of why I said V. Lossky is not the first or last word:
You said that when?

This has what to do with Lossky? Except that he, Hieromonk Galitzin (a Gediminid btw. I unfortunately haven't seen him in years, but quite a homilist) and Met. Hilarion are Orthodox?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.181 seconds with 73 queries.