And do you not believe that much of what those councils taught were legitimate developments of doctrine?
It depends, again, on what you mean by development of doctrine. If you mean something new that the Apostles did not know or could not have known?
No, I do not believe in that kind of development of doctrine.
For example, the Third Council of Constantinople (680-681), under Pope Agatho was attended by the Patriarchs of Constantinople and of Antioch, 174 bishops, and the emperor. It put an end to Monothelism by defining two wills in Christ, the Divine and the human, as two distinct principles of operation.
Now, I highly doubt that the Apostles could have articulated - or even fully understood - the two wills in Christ as two distinct principles of operation. That is a "development".
On the contrary, the Apostles *did* believe in the two wills of Christ. Here's why:
Jesus, in the Garden, asks that the cup pass from him, and yet says of the Father: nevertheless, not my will, but thine be dine. In John's Gospel, Jesus says to his Apostles, my will is to do the will of him who sent me. And we could multiply such examples.
But, we also know that the Gospels assert Jesus' divine personhood. Again John's Gospel: I and the Father are one, he who as seen me has seen the Father. Again, we could multiply examples.
The point here is this: the Apostles could not have believe that Jesus was only human and had only a human will, because he claimed to be one with the Father and that seeing him was seeing the Father. But clearly Jesus *did* have a human will, because he clearly aligns his human will with the will of the Father in the Garden.
Hebrews says that Jesus had to become like us in all ways. So, if Jesus is like us, he had a human will. But clearly he also was divine, the only begotten Son of God. And as the Son of the Father he also had the divine will.
This is just a brief sketch, but I think it sufficient to demonstrate that the Apostles *did* believe that Jesus had two wills.
Now, did the Apostles use the same sort of technical terminology that III Constantinople used? Of course not. But that's a far cry from saying the Apostles didn't know or couldn't know that Jesus had two wills.
Orthodox accept a very specific kind of "development of doctrine": that which is exemplified by the Councils: nothing new added to the Faith, but specific expressions of that Faith to avoid distorting the Apostolic deposit. When Chalcedon gave its definition of the Person of Christ, it didn't invent new things to say about Christ, it gave four alpha-privatives. It said, here are the things we cannot say about Christ lest we depart from the Apostolic deposit.
III Constantinople did not add something new to our understanding of Christ which we got from the Apostles, but safeguarded what we *had* received so that we would not depart from the Apostles' teaching. It gave new developments of expressing the one and the same doctrine, but it did not develop the doctrine or change it.
Here's the problem with the Apostles not having as much knowledge as we have: if we are not to depart from the Gospel, we have to ensure that our Gospel is apostolic, but if we are asserting something the Apostles didn't/couldn't believe, how can we know it is truly apostolic? I submit we cannot, your analogy below (on which I'm to comment next) notwithstanding.
The same can be said for Catholic doctrines in later councils. The seeds - the genesis - of the doctrines can be found in scripture, but not fully developed. Surely you can see that.
First of all, your metaphor of seeds (or acorn/oak as I've also seen, borrowing from Aristotle) doesn't fit your definition of the development of doctrine and here's why.
The fullgrown development of the plant from the seed does not, in fact, constitute anything new relative to the organism. There has been no change in the essence/substance of the organism, only a change, relative to time, in its appearance/accidence. Indeed, using the acorn/oak analogy, if, on full growth, one were to lop off various branches of the tree, that would not change the essence of the organism either. An acorn *is* an oak at a specific point in time. A full grown oak is the same acorn at a specific point in time.
But the development of doctrine, as explicated by Rome via Cardinal Newman, does not actually teach the sort of organic development as the metaphor. In fact, the development spoken of by Rome is completely new, and not contained in the apostolic acorn/seed. Here are a few examples:
No Apostle, and no Church Father ever taught the filioque. The filioque itself was a noble-intentioned attempt to fend of Arianism, but because it was not part of the Apostolic deposit, because it was a true innovation, it necessarily ends up with an heretical Trinity in which the Spirit is not of the same essence as the Father and the Son (which explains in part, in my opinion, that the Western churches have had such problems with their understanding of the charismata).
No Apostle, and no Church Father, ever taught this doctrine. In fact, the historical evidence defeats this doctrine because popes have been condemned by Ecumenical Council as being heretics (such as Honorius). In fact, this distorts the Apostolic deposit of the Faith regarding the Church, severing the connection of the Head from the Body (cf. Ephesians 4).
Universal Papal Jurisdiction:
No Apostle, and no Church Father, ever taught this doctrine. In fact, the witness of the Church Fathers is that all bishops are the successors to St. Peter (see St. Cyprian of Carthage). This teaching does distort the Apostolic deposit because it once again severs the connection of the Head from the Body.
The Immaculate Conception:
No Apostle, and no Church Father, ever taught this doctrine. In fact, this teaching distorts what the Apostle Paul *did* teach in Romans, that all humans have been infected with the effects of the sin of Adam. If a development of doctrine contradicts Scripture, it cannot be Apostolic.
No, the Roman teaching on the development of doctrine is not the teaching of the Church.