Can Dogma Develop?

The opening verse of the book of Hebrews tells us that "[i]n many and various ways
God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets." This was done fragmentarily,
under various figures and symbols. Man was not given religious truth as though
from a Scholastic theologian, nicely laid out and fully indexed. Doctrines had to be
thought out, lived out in the liturgical life of the Church, even pieced together by
the Fathers and ecumenical councils. In this way, the Church has gained an everdeepening understanding of the deposit of faith that had been "once for all
delivered" to it by Christ and the apostles (cf. Jude 3).
Protestantsespecially Fundamentalists and Evangelicalsadmit that much. They
recognize there was a real development in doctrine: There was an initial message,
much clouded at the Fall, and then a progressively fuller explanation of Gods
teachings as Israel was prepared for the Messiah, until the apostles were instructed
by the Messiah himself. Jesus told the apostles that in the Old Testament "many
prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to
hear what you hear, and did not hear it" (Matt. 13:17).

Hold Fast to What You Were Taught

Christians have always understood that at the close of the apostolic agewith the
death of the last surviving apostle, John, perhaps around A.D. 100public
revelation ceased (Catechism of the Catholic Church 6667, 73). Christ fulfilled the
Old Testament law (Matt. 5:17) and is the ultimate teacher of humanity: "You have
one teacher, the Messiah" (Matt. 23:10). The apostles recognized that their task
was to pass on, intact, the faith given to them by the Master: "[A]nd what you have
heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to
teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2); "But as for you, continue in what you have learned
and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it" (2 Tim. 3:14).
However, this closure to public revelation doesnt mean there isnt progress in the
understanding of what has been entrusted to the Church. Anyone interested in
Christianity will ask, "What does this doctrine imply? How does it relate to that
doctrine?"

Vatican II on Development
In answering these questions, the Church facilitates the development or maturing
of doctrines. The Blessed Virgin Mary models this process of coming to an ever
deeper understanding of Gods revelation: "But Mary kept all these things,
pondering them in her heart" (Luke 2:19). Its important to understand that the
Church does not, indeed cannot, change the doctrines God has given it, nor can it
"invent" new ones and add them to the deposit of faith that has been "once for all
delivered to the saints." New beliefs are not invented, but obscurities and
misunderstandings regarding the deposit of faith are cleared up.
Vatican II explained, "The tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the
Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding
of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through
the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their
hearts, through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they
experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through

episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For, as the centuries succeed one
another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth
until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her" (Dei Verbum 8).
As we read Scripture, we see in it doctrines we already hold, each of us having
been instructed in the faith before ever picking up the sacred text. This is a
necessary process, as Scripture indicates. Peter explained, "There are some things
in them [Pauls letters] hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist
to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures" (2 Pet. 3:16). Those who
are ignorant of orthodox Christian doctrine because they have never been taught it,
or who are unstable in their adherence to the orthodox doctrine they have been
taught, can twist Pauls writings and the rest of Scripture to their own destruction.
Therefore, it is important that we read Scripture within the framework of the
Churchs constant tradition, as handed down from the apostles in the Catholic
Church.
However, when we read Scripture in the light of the apostles authentic teachings,
we sometimes forget that some central doctrines (such as the Trinity and the
hypostatic union) were not always understood or as clearly expounded in the
Churchs early days the way they are now. Understanding grew and deepened over
time. As an example, consider the Holy Spirits divinity. In Scripture, references to
it seem to jump out at us. But if we imagine ourselves as ancient pagans or as
present-day non-Christians reading the Bible for the first time, we realize, for them,
the Holy Spirits status as a divine person is not as clearly present in Scripture,
since they are less likely to notice details pointing to it. If we think of ourselves as
having no recourse to apostolic tradition and to the Churchs teaching authority that
the Holy Spirit guides into all truth (cf. John 14:25-26, 16:13), we can appreciate
how easy it must have been for the early heresies concerning the Trinity and Holy
Spirit to arise.
Another example is the early heresy known as Monothelitism. This heresy, which
Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants reject, claimed that Christ had only
one willthe divineand that he had no human will. This error sprang up because
people had not yet clearly perceived that, since Christ is fully God, he must have a
divine will, and, since he is fully man, he must have a human will. If he lacks one or
the other will, then he would either not be fully God or not be fully man. Thus Christ
must have two wills, one divine and one human. But because the issue had never
been raised before, this teaching had not yet been discerned as a necessary
inference from the fact that Christ is fully God and fully mantwo teachings that
had been understood for ages.
Transubstantiation (the teaching that during Mass, at the moment of consecration,
the substance of the bread and wine becomes, through a miraculous change
wrought by Gods grace, the substance of the body and blood, soul and divinity of
Jesus Christ, though the appearances of bread and wine remain) is another
example of a doctrine that had always been believed by the Church, but whose
exact meaning was understood more clearly over time. In the sixth chapter of
Johns Gospel, the Eucharist is promised by Jesus. If this chapter is read in
conjunction with the accounts of the Last Supper, it is easy to see why the first
Christians knew that the bread and wine are transubstantiated into Christs actual
body and blood. The Bible clearly says this change happens (cf. 1 Cor. 10:1617,
11:2329), but it is silent about how it happens.
The technical theological term "transubstantiation" was not formally adopted by the
Catholic Church until the Fourth Lateran Council, in 1215. This was not the addition
of a new doctrine, but was the Churchs way of defining what it had always taught
on this subject in terms that would be so exact as to exclude all the incorrect

explanations proposed over the years to explain what happens at the moment of
consecration. Because people gave a lot of thought to the meaning and implications
of Christs Real Presence in the Eucharist, because they tried their best to draw true
inferences from this true doctrine, and because not all of them were adept at that,
disputes arose, and a formal definition by the Church became necessary.

No Necessity to Define
As these and many other cases demonstrate, doctrinal questions can remain in a
not-yet-fully-defined state for years. The Church has never felt the need to define
formally what there has been no particular pressure to define. This strikes many,
particularly non-Catholics, as strange. Why werent things cleared up in, say, A.D.
100, so folks could know whats what? Why didnt Rome issue a laundry list of
definitions in the early days and let it go at that? Why wasnt an end-run made
around all these troubles that plagued Christianity precisely because things were
unclear? The remote reason is that God has had his own timetable and set of
reasons (to which we arent privy) for keeping it. The same could be said about Old
Testament prophets: Why didnt they understand the fullness of the doctrine of the
Trinity all at once? Or the identity of the Messiah? Or the fullness of Christian
teaching? Partly because God had not revealed it all yet, and partly because their
understanding of the implications of the doctrines they had needed to grow clearer
over time.
This need to discern more clearly what is contained in the deposit of faith given to
the Church by the apostles points us to the related subjects of infallibility and
inspiration. The pope and the bishops (when teaching in union with him) have the
charism of infallibility when defining matters of faith or morals; but infallibility
works only negatively. Through the intervention of the Holy Spirit, the pope and
bishops are prevented from teaching what is untrue, but they are not forced or told
by the Holy Spirit to teach what is true. To put it another way, the pope and the
bishops are not inspired the way the authors of Scripture or the prophets were. To
make a new definition, to clear up some dogmatic confusion, they first have to use
human reason, operating on what is known to date, to be able to teach more
precisely what is to be held as true. They cannot teach what they do not know, and
they learn things the same way we do. They have no access to prophetic shortcuts
they must delve by study into the riches of the words God has already given us.

Borrowing From Paganism?

Fundamentalists assert that what Catholics label as development is nothing more
than a centuries-old accumulation of pagan beliefs and rites. The Catholic Church
has not really refined the original deposit of faith, they claim. Instead, it has added
to it from the outside. In its hurry to increase membership, particularly in the early
centuries, the Church let in nearly anybody. When existing inducements were not
enough, it adopted pagan ways to encourage pagans to convert. Each time the
Church did this, it moved away from authentic Christianity.
Consider Christmas. Strict Fundamentalists do not observe it, and not only because
the name of the feast is inescapably "Christs Mass." Some say they disapprove of it
because there is no proof Christ was born on December 25. Others argue he
couldnt have been born in winter because the shepherds, who were in the fields
with their sheep, never put sheep into fields during that season (a plausible, though
in this case, erroneous assumption). Others, noting the Bible is silent about the
feast of Christmas, say that should settle the matter. But these are all secondary
considerations.

The real reasons many Fundamentalists oppose the celebration of Christmas are,
first, that the feast of Christmas was established by the Catholic Church (which is
bad enough) and, next, that the Church provided celebrating the birth of Christ as
an alternative to celebrating a pagan holiday occurring at the same time.
The Fundamentalist objections notwithstanding, Scripture sanctions this practice.
The Jewish Feast of Tabernacles was on the same day as a Canaanite vintage
festival that it supplanted, much as Christmas coincided with the festival of Sol
Invictus that non-Christians were celebrating. This is the same principle that
Protestant churches use when they replace the celebration of Halloween with
"Reformation Day" or "harvest festival" celebrations. It is an attempt to provide a
wholesome alternative celebration to a popular but unwholesome one. AntiCatholics who accuse Christmas of having "pagan origins" fail to recognize that it is
precisely anti-pagan in origin.

Pauls Command about Tradition

More significant than Fundamentalists rejection of the development of human
traditionssuch as when Christs birth is celebratedis their rejection of apostolic
tradition. Human traditions may be good or bad, but they do not have the weight
that apostolic tradition does. The latter, since it conveys Gods revelation to us, is
essential to the proper development of doctrine.
Catholics know that public revelation ended with the last apostles death. But the
part of revelation that was not written downthe part outside the Bible, the
apostles inspired oral teaching (1 Thess. 2:13) and their binding interpretations of
Old Testament Scripture that forms the basis of sacred Traditionthat part of
revelation Catholics also accept. Catholics follow Pauls command: "So then,
brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either
by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15, cf. 1 Cor. 11:2).

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/can-dogma-develop