Development of Doctrine

[Spirithound]

Morning y’all!
There’s a really good discussion on the TC forum about reconciling VII with previous Magesterial documents. Something particular I would like to learn more on is the concept of the development of doctrine. As Catholics, we believe that none of our dogma can change, but it can develop.

Another member showed me this passage from Vatican I:

Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.
3. If anyone says that
• it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands:
let him be anathema.
piar.hu/councils/ecum20.h…20and%20reason

So, my first question is, if the sense of the dogma is to be maintained, how can there be development?

Secondly, can anybody give an example of when a doctrine developed?

Thank you!

 

[MarcoPolo]

Sure, one example is how the phrase “no salvation outside the Church” came to reveal that there are extenuating means by which a person can be united to the Catholic Church by informal means. Of course, this development had its seeds in Scripture, Augustine, Aquinas and some others, unto the language by which it is described in the Catechism today.

Also have you read Cardinal Newman’s Development of Christian Doctrine?

God bless!

 

[guanophore]

Something particular I would like to learn more on is the concept of the development of doctrine. As Catholics, we believe that none of our dogma can change, but it can develop.

So, my first question is, if the sense of the dogma is to be maintained, how can there be development?

It is really more a case of our understanding developing, rather than the dogma itself. Our perception of what it means, and how it can be applied to the modern age is what develops. For example, the Apostles could not know about embryonic stem cell research, but the respect for life they taught certainly applies to his modern tragedy.

The Apostles often did not understand the Teachings of Jesus, but did later:

John 10:6
6 This figure Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.

John 12:16-17

16 His disciples did not understand this at first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that this had been written of him and had been done to him.

Yet, it is not the revelation that progressed, just our understanding.

Secondly, can anybody give an example of when a doctrine developed?

Thank you!

One excellent example is the Trinity. This is a word not found in Scripture, yet the “seeds” are present. However, it had to be further clarified and defined , because heretics were using those same scriptures (just as they do today) to “prove” that Jesus is not Divine, and that the HS is not a Person.

 

[mardukm]

Brother Guanophore gave a great explanation that it is not doctrine that actually develops, but our understanding.

The “seed” remains what it is. But an understanding of that “seed” teaching can increase, depending on the circumstances necessitating the development in thought. Brothers guanophore and MarcoPolo gave great examples. You will notice that in the examples given so far the “seed” teaching does not change one single iota, but rather forms the very basis for the developed understanding. Another criterion is that that the developed understanding does not contradict the “seed” doctrine or any other established tenet of the Faith. The developed understanding is often soon enough regarded by the Church, through the authority of the Church as the voice of God (“he who listens to you listens to Me”), as itself legitimate, infallible teaching.

Another example is the dogma of Two Wills (whether it is diothelite or miathelite). This teaching developed truly and immediately from the dogma of the Two Natures. If no one had ever made an issue of it, it would never have been dogmatized. But it was an issue, and the Church needed to respond according to and BASED ON existing accepted teaching (or dogma). The original dogma (the “seed”) of Two Natures never changed one iota when the Church responded to the new controversy.

To repeat. Two criteria you can use to determine if something is a legitimate development is: (1) The “seed” doctrine DOES NOT CHANGE one iota. (2) The developed understanding does not contradict ANY established teaching of the Church. It has been a long time since I’ve read Newman’s masterpiece, but he may have had other criteria for the determination.

As an example, let’s consider brother MarcoPolo’s example: Outside the Church there is no salvation. How does this square with the Catholic Church’s current understanding that salvation CAN exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church.

The most obvious resolution is to investigate the meaning of the word “Church” in the aphorism. Does “Church” ONLY mean “Catholic Church?” Or can it mean merely “ekklesia,” the “People of God.” One also needs to take into account the constant and patristic belief that invincible ignorance mitigates sin or rejection of Christ. Of course, it is of no small importance that the Catholic Church teaches that even if the Grace of salvation can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church, she nevertheless asserts that all Grace of salvation comes THROUGH the Catholic Church proper.

In any case, I hope this thread doesn’t turn into a debate on particular points of doctrine that have “developed.” I’m sure each doctrine deserves its own thread.

Blessings,
Marduk