Orthodoxy and Tradition
A question which has been recurring to me, partly because of the experience Peter and I have had with the EO on the Monachos website, is how Orthodoxy deal with change.
It strikes me that one reason some of the EO on that site will never deal with some of the questions that Peter and I pose is that the only logical answers to them lie outside what they have been taught; i.e. it questions their tradition. They have been taught that the OO are monophysites, and therefore, however much Peter and I argue that the evidence is hugely against that interpretation, and that even some of their own theologians question that notion, they literally cannot entertain the idea because it is against traditional teaching.
If the characteristic vice of Anglicanism has been to adapt itself to the spirit of the age to the extent that it can almost seem to be an instrument for secularised moral teaching, then I suppose the corresponding problem for Orthodoxy would be this inability to deal with something that questioned traditional teaching. Of course not all EO take up this very conservative line, but it seems as though many do.
How do members of the Fellowship find that Oriental Orthodoxy deals with the problem of what might be called development?
The EO tend to fetishise the idea of the Ecumenical council, and some of them come close to attributing infallibility to the councils; this does not seem to be the OO position.
But how does the Church determine not only what is Orthodox by tradition, but how Orthodoxy deals with changing times?
In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. (1 John 4:10)