Catholics and Orthodox have an extremely different understanding of what dogma is and how pertains to the Church
This is the Roman Catholic understanding: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/can-dogma-develop
>the Church facilitates the development or maturing of doctrines.
The Orthodox understanding of dogma is that which was passed directly by Christ to his Apostles. Nothing can be added, ever, by the Church, nothing can be taken away, that is the sum of doctrine (this is why there is technically no dogmatic canon of Scripture in the Orthodox Church, because Christ did not pass on a canon of Scripture, Scripture is an authority only as a witness to what he passed on). Dogma can be expressed in new ways (just saying it in another language is a new expression), but the *understanding* is always the same, the understanding of dogma does not "evolve", it does not "develop" or "mature". The purpose of new expressions are strictly to preserve the same understanding, not to impart a new one. The Church's job is only to safeguard dogma, not to "develop" it.
>>1078976
>The Orthodox Christians around me were condemning Rome as heresy because of the Papacy, filioque, and other such things (the list is longer or shorter depending on who you talk to). But I realized something: it didn’t add up. If the filioque is a heresy, then what is the Orthodox doctrine of the Holy Spirit? They respond and say “The Orthodox Church teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.” Yes, this is the doctrine of St. Photios. But do you not know, oh my brother, that St. Gregory of Cyprus has a different doctrine? Does the Council of Blechernae (1285) represent the Orthodox doctrine of the Holy Spirit? Is it ecumenical? Why or why not? They respond, “We’re not sure which one is Orthodox, but we know the filioque is heresy.” But tell me, oh my Christian brother: if I cannot find which is the Orthodox dogma, how can I be an Orthodox Christian?
>>1079681
Both of them have the same doctrine
>>1079681
>Further, in the local councils (at Jassy and Jerusalem) which responded to Protestantism, according to Kallistos Ware, “one does not find the Orthodox tradition in its fullness.”47 These canons were later modified because of their western influence. Which dogma, then, is the Orthodox dogma? If the council was modified, on what grounds? If it was accepted, on what grounds? If I claim that, for example, Aquinas’ transubstantiatio doctrine is the Orthodox one (since it was affirmed by Jerusalem, 1672), what will an Orthodox Christian tell me? “No, it’s a mystery. We don’t believe in that western scholasticism.” Why not? Because the current view rejects it? The ‘current view’ once accepted the Immaculate Conception, but now does not.48 The “consensus” once condemned the murder of life-creation, but now does not.49 What of the biblical canon? What is the Orthodox canon? The Council of Jerusalem affirmed the Apocrypha but St. Philaret’s catechism denies these books canonical status. “It is mystery,” I am told, “the Church works by consensus. You can’t hope for some papal responsa. Nothing is defined so exactly like the Papists, that’s what makes Orthodoxy beautiful.”50
>>1078976
So what do you Orthodox just ignore that Jesus told Peter what was bound on Earth is bound in Heaven and vice versa?
>>1079698
That Council used the term "transubstantiation" to make it clear that the Protestant conception of the Eucharist, which was infesting the Church, was rejected in absolute terms. It has zero to do with affirming Aquinas's theology.
>>1079710
Do Catholics just ignore he also said this to all his Apostles?
>>1079722
The main point I was making was Jesus approves of additional dogma being added over time and states that anything his Church approves of has already been approved in Heaven.
God gave us a garden to be tended not a museum
I like positive beliefs, not negative beliefs
btw nice cherrypicking on the catholic source
>>1079741
Uh, no. The keys to heaven mean the keys to who gets through gates, not power to create dogma.
Yes the catholic understanding of dogma is whatever it takes for the church to remain relevant and close to political power and ideological opinion of the day, either by ass kissing secular authority or by elevating itself above secular authority, depending on the correlation of forces, or by flattering the masses and would be rulers, manipulating them and throwing them against legitimate rulers, in short everything it takes will be done.
>>1078976
Jesus Christ, nobody cares. It's all still a bunch of old men sitting around bullshitting.
You people are like evangelicals with your "totes OG christians" horseshit.
>>1079745
Agreed, but dogma is supposed to be the walls of the garden. You gotta have boundaries, bruh.
