Development of doctrine
This article needs additional citations for verification. (July 2015) |
Papal primacy, supremacy and infallibility |
---|
Development of doctrine is a term used by John Henry Newman and other theologians influenced by him to describe the way Catholic teaching has become more detailed and explicit over the centuries, while later statements of doctrine remain consistent with earlier statements.
Precursors
In the 16th century, Erasmus controversially suggested, from historical evidence, the reality of the development of doctrine in some important areas: examples being papal supremacy ("I have never doubted about the sovereignty of the Pope, but whether this supremacy was recognised in the time of St. Jerome, I have my doubts"[1]: 197 ) and the Trinity and filioque ("We (now) dare to call the Holy Spirit true God, proceeding from the Father and the Son, which the ancients did not dare to do."[2]).
Newman's Formulation
The term was introduced in Newman's 1845 book An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.
He argued that various Catholic doctrines not accepted by Protestants (such as devotion to the
G.K. Chesterton characterized the Development of Doctrine as:
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;...
— G.K. Chesterton, Ch I, St Thomas Aquinas, 1933[4]
As distinct from evolution of dogmas
There is a more radical understanding of development of doctrine that is known as evolution of dogmas. This view, mixed in with philosophical currents such as
Eastern Orthodoxy
Archpriest Oleg Davydenkov wrote: "This theory is very convenient for Western Christians, because it makes it easy to justify arbitrary dogmatic innovations of both the Roman Catholic Church and Protestant denominations. On the one hand, this theory seems quite logical, but on the other — it leads to paradoxical conclusions. In this case, we will have to admit, for example, that the Church of the time of the apostles and even the holy apostles themselves knew incomparably less about God than any modern Christian who attended a course of dogmatics. Naturally, it is impossible to agree with such an understanding of the problem".[6]
Daniel Lattier has argued that some older
See also
- Thomas Bayes
- Bayes' theorem
- Bayesian probability
- Grammar of Assent
- Probabiliorism
- Progressive revelation (Christianity)
References
- ^ Gasquet, Francis Aidan (1900). The Eve of the Reformation. Studies in the Religious Life and Thought of the English people in the Period Preceding the Rejection of the Roman jurisdiction by Henry VIII.
- )
- ^ Constitution on Revelation, article 8,
- ^ Chesterton, G.K. (1933). St Thomas Aquinas.
- ^ "Modernism", in "Glossary", 1987 Catholic Almanac, Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, p. 318.
- ^ Давыденков, Олег (2005). "Часть первая. Введение в догматическое богословие раздел I. Догматическое богословие как наука". Догматическое богословие.
Теория эта очень удобна для западных христиан, поскольку легко позволяет оправдать произвольные догматические нововведения как Римо-Католической церкви, так и протестантских конфессий. С одной стороны, эта теория кажется довольно логичной, но с другой — она ведёт к парадоксальным выводам. В таком случае придется, например, признать, что Церковь времен апостолов и даже сами святые апостолы знали о Боге несравненно меньше, чем любой современный христианин, прослушавший курс догматики. Естественно, что с таким пониманием проблемы согласиться нельзя
- ^ Daniel J. Lattier (2011). "The Orthodox Rejection of Doctrinal Development". Ecclesia (20(4)): 389–410.
Further reading
- John Henry Newman. An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. (1845, revised 1878).
- John R, White, “Doctrinal development and the philosophy of history. Cardinal Newman’s theory in the light of Eric Voegelin’s philosophy of history,” American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, Spring 2009, vo. 83, no. 2, 201-218. Prepublication version: https://www.academia.edu/2150506/Doctrinal_development_and_the_philosophy_of_history_Cardinal_Newman_s_theory_in_the_light_of_Eric_Voegelin_s_philosophy_of_history
- John R. White, “St. Bonaventure and the problem of doctrinal development,” American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, vol. 85, no. 1, Winter 2011, 177-202.Prepublication version: https://www.academia.edu/2150520/St_Bonaventure_and_the_problem_of_doctrinal_development