Latins make a distinction between doctrine and discipline. I can't remember if Orthodoxers do. ...... In the way you are phrasing this, I get the impression that to be a good Orthodoxer you must agree with dogma, but not necessarily doctrine. Is that right? I ask because I figure there must be some Orthodox doctrine about the Bible itself, and if so, then if you MUST also believe in doctrine (contrary to my supposition above), then I am confused based on the history of this conversation.
One bottom line question is at what level (dogma, doctrine, discipline) does heresy come into play?
BTW, I have a sneaking suspicion that "they can become more detailed" really means "they can change", even though no one wants to admit it. :)
My faith and my opinion are not one and the same. :)
This is exactly the crux of the mystery I am trying to discover. :) I don't understand how this is not a "house divided". I mean, my faith is concrete, and I have opinions in some areas, such as a young earth. However, they never directly contradict. This is why I don't understand when you say that your opinion on occasion conflicts with Church teaching.
No, the consensus patrum reads +Paul differently than I or the Protestants. I know what my impressions are, but I defer to the consensus.
Yes, you'll defer, sort of as if that is how you would answer on a test to give a teacher what he wanted. Meanwhile, you really think something else. This is what I don't understand.
If no Church knows the truth fully, then there is no true Church. If you are church shopping then you can't believe your church is a true church but a man-made institution.
I respectfully disagree and say that not only does MY local church not know the truth fully, but that God's Church does not know the truth fully (unless it is unknowable to the individual). Otherwise, there is no more growth and sanctification ceases. The good work that God began in us would no longer be needed ...... "until the day of Christ Jesus".
Presumably, if the Orthodox Church knew the truth fully, it would have said so and published so in order to witness to the rest of us. That would be the Christian thing to do. Yet, you just told me that in Orthodoxy there are only three dogmas, all of which any Christian could readily agree to. Do those three dogmas constitute the "truth fully"? If so, then I would think that you, the Catholics, and us would all be in communion together. So that can't be what it means.
Brass tacks: If you believe that the Orthodox Church is in possession of the truth fully, and if your last council was over a thousand years ago, and if you have three dogmas, and if every holding of the consensus patrum is searchable and learnable by any Orthodoxer today, then, have you stopped growing spiritually?
That is because the Protestant mindset is to defer to themselves and their own opinion, while those of the Church defer to the Church. The Church doesn't "know" the entire Truth. Just the fullness of Revelation. God has not necessarily revealed EVERYTHING about Himself, nor every angle of theological understanding. Thus, in time, we see the Fathers "learning" more about what God has revealed, further delving into the mystery. However, if your foundation is built on sand (our clouded intellect because we are torn by sin and its effects), there will be problems. We are told in the Gospels that certain truths CANNOT be learned by the "flesh", but only by the Spirit within the Church (John 6 and Mat 16, for example). Build upon rock and you can be sure of more advanced theological expressions later.
I respectfully disagree and say that not only does MY local church not know the truth fully, but that God's Church does not know the truth fully (unless it is unknowable to the individual). Otherwise, there is no more growth and sanctification ceases.
Sanctification is not "knowing about" Christ, as if you are studying for a test on your Bible Commentary. Kosta will no doubt agree that the holiest and most saintly are often the simplest of people, people who could care less what were the various theological explanations of grace vs. free will and the Scripture quotes that back up each side. This makes your faith strictly intellectual. Becoming Holy, as God is Holy, is about growing in love through experience of Christ's love within us. This "school" begins at the Cross, at the foot of Calvary, not in your books on textual criticism and commentaries on the Bible.
If you believe that the Orthodox Church is in possession of the truth fully, and if your last council was over a thousand years ago, and if you have three dogmas, and if every holding of the consensus patrum is searchable and learnable by any Orthodoxer today, then, have you stopped growing spiritually?
Spirituality, again, is application of what God has revealed to mankind. Spirituality doesn't stop just because God has finished writing Scripture or the Church has not been defining doctrine in over 50 years.
Regards
...I figure there must be some Orthodox doctrine about the Bible itself, and if so, then if you MUST also believe in doctrine (contrary to my supposition above), then I am confused based on the history of this conversation
The best way I can describe to you what the Orthodox Church teaches about the Bible is from the way it is worded in one of the articles on the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (GOARCH):
To put it another way: the Bible reveals God's perfect truth even tough it is expressed imperfectly
I think you will recognize my consistent approach towards the Scriptures in that statement.
The Orthodox Church does not have a specific 'dogma' about the Bible. The Old Testament was considered Scripture when the Apostles wrote their books, particularly the Septuagint (LXX) OT, form which they quote overwhelmingly.
The Church accepted all apostolic writings as Scripture from the beginning without any specific dogma (the real problem was discerning whihc writings that circulated in those days, were apostolic in authorship).
The "acceptance" was realized simply by reading apostolic books during the Divine Liturgy. If it was read in the church, by the decision of its bishop, it was assumed to be apostolic. Thus, the Bible is simply a product, a central one at that, of the life of the Church otherwise known as the Holy (or Sacred) Tradition.
Acceptance of the Bible by the original Church was not 'regulated' by dogma. It was simply accepted on tradition.
Heresy, by definition is any teaching that denies the essential elements of the Christian faith, as contained in the Symbol of Faith (i.e. the Creed) finalized in 381 AD
Dogma does not evolve and does not change. Dogma is a statement of truth known to the Church, expressed by a general or local council, in response to heresies. Note: the Catholic Church departed from this after the Schism and proclaimed dogma without clear and present heresies.
Doctrine can evolve but not change. One can disagree with individual fathers' speculations (theoogical hypotheses or theologoumenna) but not with consensus patrum because that represents the collective knowledge and unanimous doctrinal agreement of the whole Church.
Individual fathers are fallible. The Church as a whole isn't.
Faith is not rational. If it were, it would be rationalism. In other words, we could establish its truth based on reason. But we can't. When it comes to God, reason breaks down. God makes no sense. How can an infinite God become a finite man? How can he, who is without bounds, fit into a womb?
Part of the Jewish argument against Christianity is precisely false rationalism: man cannot become God. But, we reply, can God become man? We believe that with God everything is possible even if we don't understand it. So, opinion and faith is not the same thing.
Yes, you'll defer, sort of as if that is how you would answer on a test to give a teacher what he wanted. Meanwhile, you really think something else. This is what I don't understand.
No, I defer because I believe that I do not possess greater knowledge and revelation that the combined corpus of the entire Church. So, I defer to the Church in earnest even if my reason does not agree with Church's interpretation.
Perhaps I didn't find a need to be super specific, but I will rephrase, then, that the Apostolic Church was given the fullness of God's revealed truth (obviously, that which is not revealed cannot be known). Thus, within the Church is the fullness of our faith in true God.
If you do not believe that your church knows the fullness of God's revealed truth you cannot be sure that your God is a true God or that your faith is a true faith. If you doubt the truth of your church, you doubt the truth of your faith and you doubt the truth of your God.
Otherwise, there is no more growth and sanctification ceases.
Not at all! That's why +James tells you to get on with works. Faith is life; we live our faith. Our appreciation for God never ceases!
Presumably, if the Orthodox Church knew the truth fully, it would have said so and published so in order to witness to the rest of us
It does, repeatedly, that the fullness of our faith is in the Church. Our Creed reminds us every Sunday that Christ is True God of true God. Yet, you just told me that in Orthodoxy there are only three dogmas, all of which any Christian could readily agree to
That's what makes them Christian, but not Orthodox Christian.
Do those three dogmas constitute the "truth fully"?
Absolutely, God's revealed truth, that is.
If so, then I would think that you, the Catholics, and us would all be in communion together
We agree with the Catholics on all three dogmas. We disagree on the procession of the Holy Spirit. We will never be in communion until such time when our dogmatic differences are properly understood as one and the same faith. You and us (Orthodox/Catholic) disagree with Protestants and Baptists on a variety of theological issues, not necessarily on essential dogmas, which is why all mainline Protestants and Baptists are Christians.
In order for communion to take place we must share all aspects of our faith and praxis (Communion, after all, is praxis!) as a symbol of one and the same faith, and not as a means of achieving one.
Brass tacks: If you believe that the Orthodox Church is in possession of the truth fully, and if your last council was over a thousand years ago, and if you have three dogmas, and if every holding of the consensus patrum is searchable and learnable by any Orthodoxer today, then, have you stopped growing spiritually?
Spiritual growth is an individual's journey to God. The Church is certainly not "growing" spiritually or "learning." The Church was given the fullness of God's revelation contained in the Holy Tradition (in orthodoxy, the Bible is the central part of that 'deposit of faith'; in Roman catholicism, it is parallel with it). If the Church does not know the fullness of God's revealed truth, how can the Church know what is heresy and what orthodoxy? How could the Church agree on what is inspired and what is not or have you forgotten that it was the Church that put together the Bible you believe in by discerning, based on orthodox faith, which writings were inspired and which profane?