Two kinds of doctrinal development

[Trebor135]

This short post by an Anglican professor of theology on development of doctrine has just come to my attention.

William Witt, channelling J. F. Mozley, offers a response to the theory so famously put forward by John Henry Cardinal Newman:

Mozley speaks of this kind of development in terms of what I will call “Development 1.” Development 1 adds nothing to the original content of faith, but rather brings out its necessary implications. Mozley says that Aquinas is doing precisely this kind of development in his discussion of the incarnation in the Summa Theologiae.

There is another kind of development, however, which I will call “Development 2.” Development 2 is genuinely new development that is not simply the necessary articulation of what is said explicitly in the Scriptures.

Classic examples of Development 2 would include the differences between the doctrine of the theotokos and the dogmas of the immaculate conception or the assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. In the former, Marian dogma is not actually saying something about Mary, but rather something about Christ. If Jesus Christ is truly God, and Mary is his mother, then Mary is truly the Mother of God (theotokos). She gives birth, however, to Jesus’ humanity, not his eternal person, which has always existed and is generated eternally by the Father. The doctrine of the theotokos is a necessary implication of the incarnation of God in Christ, which is clearly taught in the New Testament. However, the dogmas of the immaculate conception and the assumption are not taught in Scripture, either implicitly or explicitly. They are entirely new developments.

The same would be true, of course, for the doctrine of the papacy. The New Testament says much about the role of Simon Peter as a leader of the apostles. It does not say anything explicit, however, about the bishop of Rome being the successor to Peter. The Eastern fathers, e.g., Cyprian, interpret the Petrine passages that Rome has applied to the papacy as applying to all bishops.

Other examples of Development 2 would include purgatory and indulgences.

Witt, still channeling Mozley, then charges that Newman commits a logical fallacy with severe consequences:

Newman presents his argument for development as a dilemma. Anglicans (and Protestants in general) accept the dogmas of Nicea, of the Trinity, of Chalcedon, etc., but these are not taught explicitly in Scripture. They are developments. But Anglicans do not accept the doctrines of the papacy, the Marian dogmas, etc., which are also developments. Anglicans are accordingly inconsistent. To accept one development is logically to accept the others as well.

Mozley’s response is that Newman conflates two quite distinct kinds of development. Development 1 adds nothing new to the content of faith. Development 2 does. Accepting Development 1 is a necessary consequence of taking seriously what the New Testament actually says. Development 2, however, adds something genuinely new to the content of faith. Nicea is an example of Development 1, not Development 2. The infallibility of the papacy is an example of Development 2, not Development 1. Accepting Development 1 does not logically entail accepting Development 2. By not distinguishing between the two kinds of development, Newman commits a logical fallacy, and his argument collapses.

How would Catholics and Orthodox respond to the above? Though they disagree completely on most of the Development 2 doctrines mentioned, both hold strongly that Mary committed no actual sin and was taken up into heaven, beliefs which would technically fall into that same category in the understanding of Witt and Mozley.

 

[trickster]

This short post by an Anglican professor of theology on development of doctrine has just come to my attention.

William Witt, channelling J. F. Mozley, offers a response to the theory so famously put forward by John Henry Cardinal Newman:

Witt, still channeling Mozley, then charges that Newman commits a logical fallacy with severe consequences:

How would Catholics and Orthodox respond to the above? Though they disagree completely on most of the Development 2 doctrines mentioned, both hold strongly that Mary committed no actual sin and was taken up into heaven, beliefs which would technically fall into that same category in the understanding of Witt and Mozley.

Interesting, i just posted today a thread on the idea of christianity being largely developed through calling into service the greek philosophical works of Aristotlle and Socrates…I asked in the thread why are we limited to Greek philosphy…

I think the article you put in this thread is interesting because it kind of supports where I think I am going with my thread…I think theologians producing theololgy today do Devleopment 2 type of theologies…yet they are still limited in that they have to be in confomity with earlier devleoped doctrine that has been discerned by the church’s bishops and shepherds…am I understanding the article you quote right?

Thanks

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster

 

[WoundedIcon]

What I ask is why the IC and Assumption are considered developments in the first place. Wouldn’t the Roman Catholic view be that they are a part of the oral tradition? I mean, it’s kind of hard to classify these in the “Development 2” category when there’s precedent in the early church for both.