Iconodulism and Early Christianity: A Showcase for Doctrinal Development?

The development of doctrine is a topic that comes up so often in the dialogue between Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern/Oriental Orthodox. It is often looked upon as the “crutch” of the Catholic who simply can’t connect early Christianity with Tridentine-to-post-Tridentine Catholicism by the force of logical illustration, and so a theory is brought forth to explain why they go together even when they “don’t go together.” Of course, anyone who has made the trek of working carefully through St. John Henry Newman’s essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine would know that this is a false representation of his view, but who cares to be accurate anymore these days, especially when it will kill a good opportunity?

The Rev. Dr. Richard Price on the Papal Claims in the Greek East vs Latin West

“We have an infallible magisterium!” – Yes, but some precautions lest we blind ourselves…

Recently Steven Nemes came out and has said that it is not clear from the New Testament that Jesus Christ is God or that He is one person in two natures, or basically any other dogmatic feature that comprised the formulae of the Ecumenical Councils. That is worrisome. More than worrisome. However, what is also worrisome, though far less worrisome, is that I’ve noticed that Catholics who come across a Nemes scenario might find in it an opportunity to advertise for an infallible magisterium in place of private judgment. The former is where a Nemes scenario finds resolution whereas the latter is where a Nemes scenario is left as a legitimate exercise, incapable of exclusion.

Great Interview with Suan Sonna on the Papacy book