On Sunday, Pope Francis canonized St. John Henry Newman (1801-1890), the Anglican priest and theologian who famously converted to Catholicism, and who ultimately became a Catholic cardinal. He’s chiefly remembered today for his sermons and his theological writings, including in particular on the topic of “development of doctrine” (a term he coined)*.
The idea of “development of doctrine” is grossly misunderstood by many of the doctrine’s critics. That is, many people believe it’s a matter of a doctrine being switched from one thing to another, so that what was affirmed yesterday is denied tomorrow, or what was denied yesterday is affirmed tomorrow. But while there are those who would try to smuggle heresy into theology by calling it a “development,” that’s not what the term means, and not what Newman meant. As G.K. Chesterton observed,
In short, it was what is technically called a Development in doctrine. But there seems to be a queer ignorance, not only about the technical, but the natural meaning of the word Development. The critics of Catholic theology seem to suppose that it is not so much an evolution as an evasion; that it is at best an adaptation. They fancy that its very success is the success of surrender. But that is not the natural meaning of the word Development.
When we talk of a child being well-developed, we mean that he has grown bigger and stronger with his own strength; not that he is padded with borrowed pillows or walks on stilts to make him look taller. When we say that a puppy develops into a dog, we do not mean that his growth is a gradual compromise with a cat; we mean that he becomes more doggy and not less. Development is the expansion of all the possibilities and implications of a doctrine, as there is time to distinguish them and draw them out; and the point here is that the enlargement of medieval theology was simply the full comprehension of that theology.
Newman gives some concrete examples of what he means by doctrinal development. For instance, he points out that it’s not right away that Christians were certain which books even belonged in the Bible:
On what ground, then, do we receive the Canon [of Scripture] as it comes to us, but on the authority of the Church of the fourth and fifth centuries? The Church at that era decided,—not merely bore testimony, but passed a judgment on former testimony,—decided, that certain books were of authority. And on what ground did she so decide? on the ground that hitherto a decision had been impossible, in an age of persecution, from want of opportunities for research, discussion, and testimony, from the private or the local character of some of the books, and from misapprehension of the doctrine contained in others. Now, however, facilities were at length given for deciding once for all on what had been in suspense and doubt for three centuries.
This is a particularly good example, since “as regards the New Testament, Catholics and Protestants receive the same books as canonical and inspired,” including books like James and Hebrews and Revelation that weren’t universally accepted in the first few centuries of the Church. So we must either accept the development of doctrine or reject the Bible.
Want more on the subject? Tonight I’ll be on Catholic Answers Live explaining how to make sense of development of doctrine. I’m on for the second hour (that’s 6 p.m. Central). You can tune in here to listen live, and if you have any questions, you can call in at 1-888-31-TRUTH.
*Update: Mary Catherine Gormally points out that St. Vincent of Lerins uses the phrase (or something near it) back in the fifth century. I knew Newman was indebted to St. Vincent, but didn’t know of the commonality in language.
I listened to your answers on the development of doctrine on the radio today. It seems to me that the Pope’s changes in doctrine about the death penalty have a parallel case in Christ’s treatment of divorce. He said that divorce was not allowed from the beginning but was allowed due to the hardness of their hearts: God did not want the death penalty but allowed it due to the state of the culture (prisons not always being workable) and the hardness of the human heart that insisted on retribution and would become ai lawless mob if there were no death penalty.
Exodus 22:18
Leviticus 20:27
Acts 5:1 to 5:10
Clearly God has ordained death for both individuals and even nations. He may do so again. It is His right and who shall gainsay His judgment?
People who complain about the ‘development of doctrine’ in the Catholic Church should carefully consider their own Christian doctrines so as to realize how they ALSO were developed. For example, consider the doctrines of ‘sola fide’ and ‘once saved always saved’ found in modern Protestantism. How on earth was this doctrine ever ‘developed’ after 1500 years of Christian history and practice? Such a doctrine was not even imagined in the first centuries of Christianity as is proven by early literature such as ‘The Didache’ and ‘the Shepard of Hermas’… (important ecclesiological lliterature which every Christian should be well familiar with as it is easily found on the internet.
For instance, read what ‘The Shepherd’ teaches on ‘Once Saved Always Saved’:
“…forgiveness will be granted to all the saints who have sinned even to the present day, if they repent with all their heart, and drive all doubts from their minds. For the Lord has sworn by His glory, in regard to His elect, that IF ANY ONE OF THEM SIN AFTER A CERTAIN DAY WHICH HAS BEEN FIXED, HE SHALL NOT BE SAVED. For the REPENTANCE OF THE RIGHTEOUS HAS LIMITS. Filled up are the days of repentance to all the saints; but to the heathen, repentance will be possible even to the last day. You will tell, therefore, those who preside over the Church, to direct their ways in righteousness, that they may receive in full the promises with great glory.”
How then, if the early Christian Church taught such things…could modern Christians promulgate blatantly contradictory doctrines such as ‘sola fide’ and ‘once saved always saved’? Can people NOT see the conflict of the ancient and modern doctrines here? Moreover, these early Christian writings that were very widespread in the 2nd century. And this is just one small example. So, if Protestants think their own doctrines are ‘not developed’….they should think again.
“…consider the doctrines of ‘sola fide’ and ‘once saved always saved’ found in modern Protestantism. How on earth was this doctrine ever ‘developed’ after 1500 years of Christian history and practice? Such a doctrine was not even imagined in the first centuries of Christianity as is proven by early literature such as ‘The Didache’ and ‘the Shepard of Hermas’… (important ecclesiological lliterature which every Christian should be well familiar with as it is easily found on the internet.”
Modern Protestantism embodies as many heresies and false doctrines as Roman Catholicism. It is composed of humans and humans are always prey to the same sins, vices and errors and demonic deceptions and manipulations.
Roman Catholicism made merchandise of salvation and men’s souls, some Protestants went to the other extreme and said that salvation could be bought with neither money nor works, only obtained through faith. Humans like to go from one extreme to the other, and so many forgot and forget that faith without works is a tree without fruit, just as spiritual gifts without love and charity are also in vain.
Roman Catholicism claimed to adjudicate who could be saved and who could not, so some Protestants being mere mortals, pretended that salvation was pre-destined and could be neither gained nor lost.
You could say that their “doctrines evolved.”
“How on earth” did the Roman Church ever hawk indulgences pretending that the mercy and grace of God could be bought and sold like a chattel, or pretend that a priest might drink and whore, then absolve himself the next morning or have one of his confreres do so, and then proceed to “administer the sacraments”? Indeed, some still do, and worse.
How did supposed Christians think to torture or burn other Christians whom they thought to label as “heretics”; as though they might judge them rather than God?
Well you might ask.
“…forgiveness will be granted to all the saints who have sinned even to the present day, if they repent with all their heart, and drive all doubts from their minds. For the Lord has sworn by His glory, in regard to His elect, that IF ANY ONE OF THEM SIN AFTER A CERTAIN DAY WHICH HAS BEEN FIXED, HE SHALL NOT BE SAVED. For the REPENTANCE OF THE RIGHTEOUS HAS LIMITS. Filled up are the days of repentance to all the saints; but to the heathen, repentance will be possible even to the last day. You will tell, therefore, those who preside over the Church, to direct their ways in righteousness, that they may receive in full the promises with great glory.”
Whom do you think is convicted by those words? Your Cardinals with their palaces and mistresses, and worse?
What does it say? Those who knowing the Truth continue to sin may not do so indefinitely. The heathen have until their last day to repent, those who know the Truth, but do not follow it, are accused from the day they knew that Truth.
We might guess that He who knows all, knows what day He will affix for each of those as the last day for their repentance. Who else but He knowing all could justly fix that day?
All who confess the name of Christ had best hear that warning.
I’ve been meaning to read Newman’s book, but haven’t gotten around to it. I assume he or someone else must have addressed what seems to me an important problem with this idea. Doesn’t doctrinal development tend to put the Catholic Church on the same level as other churches? If there is doctrinal development, why this development and not the development that occurred in the Greek churches or among the churches of the Reformation? The distinctive teachings of Rome look like the result of just one of many possible developments. And the modern Christian then must functionally adopt a Sola Scriptura approach to determine which church most closely adheres to the original teachings of Christianity handed down in Scripture.