Musings on Doctrinal Development

But first...

Rather than pretend that the knowledge I impart is from a genuine study of the subject I am imparting knowledge about, I'd much rather blog about my musings on the given subject. I'd like to do this mostly because it is more honest in that I'm not simply regurgitating what I found elsewhere, though re-purposing that information is inevitable to discuss any subject.

Everything that I write about could be credited to all of the historians, theologians, philosophers, etc. that I stand on to help me develop my thinking. How else do we learn?

So the primary purpose of this blog is to present it to my readers as a genuine reflection on the given subject  "according to Daniel" and to hopefully provide it in an accessible manner so that the subject is easily understood.

The secondary purpose of this blog is to fulfill my burning desire to write and learn. Having a blog allows me to have conversations about the things I like to have conversations about when "real life" doesn't present those opportunities. I've found that most people simply do not like talking theology, philosophy, history, and like subjects. This blog fills the gap between those occasions where I do find myself in the presence of someone who is intellectually curious and the very long periods of time where I don't encounter those people.

That being said, indulge with me for a moment about a subject I am most unqualified to muse about...

Doctrinal Development

One of the most striking features of Catholicism is their definition of doctrine compared to the rest of the worlds religions. What we find in Catholicism is a "code" with walls and all. Defining what we believe is essential in maintaining what we believe as time goes on and cultures change.

 If there ever was an institutional mainstay in society, the Catholic church is it. This is evident when we consider a controversial topic such as that of contraception. The Catholic church has not changed her position on the subject for 2,000 years and despite getting opposition from non-Catholic Christians and secularists alike, they still won't change their position. 

Interestingly enough, one of the accusations Catholics receive from Protestants about doctrine in general is how certain doctrines developed over time. If I held the "bible alone as the sole rule of faith" presupposition, then I'd probably be suspicious of Catholicism as well. In fact, I was when I was a Protestant, despite having grown up in the Catholic church. But once that presupposition gets called into question, the dominoes fall in order and you start to see why Catholicism makes more sense. 

Cardinal John Henry Newman is the person to look to when it comes to the subject of doctrinal development and you can find a lot of his work online regarding it. For now, all I want to do is point out one particular thought of his regarding development.

In order for anything to "develop" it first needs to be living. I think that makes a lot of sense when thinking about things in nature or even abstract laws or constitutions. From this perspective, one can see that development is not necessarily a bad thing. So the question isn't about whether it is good for something to develop or not, but rather whether something has developed genuinely or fraudulently.

In other words, is this development corrupt or does it derive from its original source? Catholics believe in Sacred Tradition, which is the deposit of faith handed down from the Apostles. The Catholic Encyclopedia says:

"Holy Scripture is therefore not the only theological source of the Revelation made by God to His Church. Side by side with Scripture there is tradition, side by side with the written revelation there is the oral revelation."

That oral revelation combined with the written revelation work hand in hand to make up the sacred deposit of faith. With oral revelation, in order for it to be living, it needs to be handed down from its source, the same way written revelation is handed down. This is where the Living Magisterium of the Church comes in. That is just a fancy way of saying the "teaching authority" of the Church. These teachers are legitimate successors to the Apostles who handed down the deposit of faith to men they chose to be their successors.

Whether we can prove that these teachers, the successors of the Apostles, are truly successors can be addressed in another post. But suffice it to say that there is no other plausible contender for such a position in light of history. It is virtually undeniable.

Now, this is the context in which we can now look at the essence of doctrinal development. It must be understood that the deposit of faith does not comprise of dusty books from the ancient world, but is "living and active" being that it is the Word of God (Heb. 4:12). And as I have mentioned before, anything that develops is assumed to be living.

Now, many non-Catholic Christians take it for granted that they also are a part of a tradition whether they like it or not. Even if you're part of a non-denominational church, there is an inherent connection to some other tradition that ultimately has its origins in the Reformation. Whether these Protestant traditions develop is evident by their various characteristics. For example, evangelical fundamentalism in America looks nothing like the Lutheran churches, though they essentially have their origins in the Reformation. Evangelicalism is largely the fruit of the seed planted during the "Great Awakening" in the 19th century and Lutheranism is closer to what was originally planted during the Reformation.

All of this was a round about way of pointing out that regardless of whether or not you think you're simply a "bible Christian," you're part of a larger theological tradition that has developed, evolved, and grown into something different than what it once was.

This brings me to my thoughts on Primivitism, which in and of itself has many forms within Christendom. Primivistism is the idea that the Church became corrupted at a certain point after the period of the Apostles and the primary goal of Christians should be to restore "pure Christianity." In its extreme form, you get Mormonism. It its more docile form, you get different types of Protestantism.

Protestants believe that the purest form of the deposit of faith from the Apostles is found in the New Testament, not Tradition. Ever since the Reformers planted this seed into peoples minds, protestant Christianity mutated and multiplied exponentially. This was mostly because of the invention of the printing press which essentially allowed more people access to Sacred Scripture.

When it was established in peoples minds that there wasn't a need for a teaching authority and that they now have the purest form of the deposit of faith in their hands, they believed they could legitimately start their own church according to their interpretation of the written word of God.

What Protestants take for granted is their own assumption that the Church was ever corrupted, but it's this view that the Church did become corrupt that drives their suspicious of doctrinal developments in Catholicism.

Going back to what I said earlier, the question isn't whether development is bad, but whether its corrupt or legitimate. Protestants essentially say that most Catholic doctrines are corrupt and they do so on the basis that certain doctrines (such as Marian doctrines) are "un-biblical."

So now we arrive at a point in the discussion that can go either of two ways. We could take the micro-level view and pick each doctrine apart and see whether or not it developed, or we could look at the macro-level and see whether doctrinal development makes any sense in the first place. I'd rather take the macro-level view.

Once we establish that doctrinal development makes sense, then we can see why Catholicism is the best possible option for anyone wanting to experience full Christianity.

The Trinity

There is perhaps no better example of doctrinal development than the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Holy Scripture does not contain any explicit formula for the doctrine of the Trinity and as such has been the source of many heresies.

We can access this concept via philosophy and define it from there, but none of these definitions are found in Scripture, at least explicitly. What the Church received regarding the Trinity contained in it the purest form of its truth, which is that God is one, yet is three distinct persons. There is a certain potentiality that exists in this doctrine that allows itself to be worked on while maintaining its most basic truth, namely that God is a Trinity of Persons - Father, Son, Holy Spirit. 

But how we grow to understand the trinity, though it may seem to have foreign language in its definition when compared to what was originally said about it, is something that cannot help but grow. One can look a car they look and find it very pleasing on the outside and they understand it to an extent. They know what it looks like. But that is all together different than knowing how it drives and once you do know how it drives, you've grown in your understanding of that vehicle. And in understanding how it drives, you don't lose what you previously knew about the vehicle, but you gain more knowledge. 

The purpose of me giving you that measly analogy is simply to point out that one can grow in their knowledge of something that is complete, but at various points not know it completely. The Trinity seems to have that characteristic, as do many other doctrines. We've grown in our understanding of how it would work using our reason and thus can define it more clearly. Defining it more clearly and explicitly only helps us to avoid falling into heresy by not believing what was divinely revealed to us. When we see it from that perspective, doctrinal development is a very good thing.

G.K. Chesterton and Protestant Logic

“What is any man who has been in the real outer world, for instance, to make of the everlasting cry that Catholic traditions are condemned by the Bible? It indicates a jumble of topsy-turvy tests and tail-foremost arguments, of which I never could at any time see the sense. The ordinary sensible sceptic or pagan is standing in the street (in the supreme character of the man in the street) and he sees a procession go by of the priests of some strange cult, carrying their object of worship under a canopy, some of them wearing high head-dresses and carrying symbolical staffs, others carrying scrolls and sacred records, others carrying sacred images and lighted candles before them, others sacred relics in caskets or cases, and so on. I can understand the spectator saying, “This is all hocus-pocus”; I can even understand him, in moments of irritation, breaking up the procession, throwing down the images, tearing up the scrolls, dancing on the priests and anything else that might express that general view. I can understand his saying, “Your croziers are bosh, your candles are bosh, your statues and scrolls and relics and all the rest of it are bosh.” But in what conceivable frame of mind does he rush in to select one particular scroll of the scriptures of this one particular group (a scroll which had always belonged to them and been a part of their hocus-pocus, if it was hocus-pocus); why in the world should the man in the street say that one particular scroll was not bosh, but was the one and only truth by which all the other things were to be condemned? Why should it not be as superstitious to worship the scrolls as the statues, of that one particular procession? Why should it not be as reasonable to preserve the statues as the scrolls, by the tenets of that particular creed? To say to the priests, “Your statues and scrolls are condemned by our common sense,” is sensible. To say, “Your statues are condemned by your scrolls, and we are going to worship one part of your procession and wreck the rest,” is not sensible from any standpoint, least of all that of the man in the street.”

In Defense Of My Catholic Shenanigans

It's not easy being Catholic you know. 

I have to go to Confession, can't use contraception, and must go to Church every Sunday. The horror! But seriously, it's not exactly convenient. 

Here's the thing, being Catholic for me was a choice that I chose because I had every reason to choose it. I was a Protestant since I "trusted Jesus Christ as my lord and savior" when I was 18. Then on my way to the Catholic church I was involved in all sorts of shenanigans. I started to dissent. 

First off, I couldn't stand using crackers and little plastic cups of grape juice every first Sunday of the month for communion. Secondly, Church was like a concert with a conference-esque talk in between. Along with the funky lights and the fancy flat screens, the lack of intellectual depth in the sermons were annoying. 

I'm just being honest and maybe I sound like a pompous you-know-what, but I can't help that I felt that way. I wasn't being prideful. I just couldn't stand the self-help talk every Sunday because I knew Christianity was more real than that. 

Then I read Thomas Aquinas and my expression was...

Is this guy really Catholic? So faithful, so devout, so...umm...Christian? He knew the Bible, he knew theology, philosophy, and all that good stuff and still defended the Church's Marian dogmas!

"Nonsense," I screamed. 

But that was all I had. No counter. Just annoyance to the nth degree. Why? Because I loved Aquinas and he was a damn Catholic and Catholics are idol worshippers who put Mary on a peddle stool and don't know the Bible. 

Then I read Augustine and...

This guy is Catholic too? Ah heck no! I delighted in reading Augustine until I found out he was a good Catholic. What's up with all the good guys, why are they all Catholic? 

This question ate away at me. Then I read John 6 and it was at this point that I was like...

And the rest followed. You see, I believed Jesus and that is ultimately why I am a Catholic. Everything in me knew deep down that the Eucharist (what we commonly call communion) was the center of Christian life and worship. And when I reflected on it and asked myself what Church celebrated the Eucharist in this way, I discovered it was the Church I grew up in—the Catholic church. 

I had come to believe that Jesus really meant what He said when He said:

“Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. (Jn. 6:53-56)

Compare that to..."This is my body" and "This is my blood" speaking about the bread and wine. Wait, wait, wait. So Jesus just said I have to eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life and be raised up and then he said that the bread was his body and the wine was his blood...

So I thought to myself, "What Church believes that Jesus is really present in the bread and wine?" Then I started to become Catholic. For real G. I didn't become Catholic because I had some deep intellectual awakening that proved my protestant logic wrong (okay, maybe a little bit), but because I believed Jesus in everything He said. 

The rest was an intellectual thing. It didn't help that I was part of a fundamentalist church called Calvary Chapel where there is an unacknowledged spirit of anti-intellectualism. But I'm not being Mr. Intellectual Superior here, I'm just saying that a little critical thinking wouldn't kill anybody. 

Besides all that, what I really had an intellectual problem with was the two fundamental doctrines of Protestanism. The first was, "The Bible Alone" as the sole and final rule of faith. The second was, "Faith alone" for salvation. 

The first is by the far the most important tenant of Protestantism. It was called into question when I was in a conversation with my friend about Catholicism when I was still a Protestant and told him, "I believe in the Bible alone," to which he responded, "Where is 'the Bible alone' in the Bible?" 

To which I had no answer. 

I went home frantically searching my Bible to find evidence for this fundamental Protestant tenet of faith, but I was found wanting. My only hope was 2 Timothy 3:16 - 

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,  so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Aha! But not really. This didn't establish "the Bible alone," it merely established that Scripture is "useful" or "profitable" for these things. Even still, when Paul wrote this particular passage, he was speaking about the Old Testament. Surely the Old Testament alone didn't count for all Scripture.

All of the arguments from Protestants to establish "the Bible alone" were weak and found wanting. What's more is that without this principle, there is no reason to accept any church in Protestantism as an authority. There was always much talk about "submitting" to your church leaders, but why? If the Bible is my ultimate authority, why should I submit to a pastors particular interpretation of the Bible? If the Bible was the foundation of truth, then why submit to any church when I could read it for myself and come up with my own interpretation?

Then I read 1 Timothy 3:15 -

"...if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."

Say whaaat?! The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth? Yes, that is what Holy Scripture tells me and what Tradition has always said. But, which Church?

That's when all sorts of buffoonery starts happening in your brain. 

You walk into your Protestant church on Sunday and all of the sudden you don't feel very exicited. You want to go to a Catholic church but everything inside of your rebels against the idea of ever stepping foot in the Catholic church.

I lost that battle obviously. I couldn't hold it in anymore. It was like what G.K. Chesterton said:

“It is impossible to be just to the Catholic Church. The moment men cease to pull against it they feel a tug towards it. The moment they cease to shout it down they begin to listen to it with pleasure. The moment they try to be fair to it they begin to be fond of it. But when that affection has passed a certain point it begins to take on the tragic and menacing grandeur of a great love affair.”

It was a love affair alright. I found myself thinking about her all of the time and wanting to sneak off on Sundays to go sit in the back of the church and experience the liturgy of the Mass. I was secretly in love with the Church.

It would be an injustice to not mention the role of N.T. Wright in all of this. N.T. Wright is an intellectual titan by today's standards. Do a wikipedia search for some background, but his insights made an incredible impact on my theological and intellectual journey to Catholicism.

N.T. Wright probably doesn't know it, but he took me by the hand and dropped me off in Rome. He might not approve of such a notion, but it's true. I'm not the first or the last person to have that happen to them.

He took every pillar of my evangelical fundamentalist logic down with an academic prowess and poetic prose that I simply couldn't refute. It was biblical, well reasoned, and obvious once he pointed it out.

Then I went on a search for a new church. The only option seemed to be the Episcopalian church which was the American wing of Anglicanism, the tradition that N.T. Wright was a part of. That's when I went on a camping trip with my good Catholic friend.

He conveniently brought with him some audio to listen to in the car and a man by the name of Scott Hahn said something that played on the strings of my Catholic leaning heart.

He was a former Protestant converted to Catholicism and on his journey to the Catholic faith he came to a decision point—he had to change churches too.

That's when he mentioned he thought he should become Episcopalian after coming to the same conclusions that I came to. Then he threw down a line of defense for not being Episcopalian that compelled me to go home and start getting some answers.

Then, my good friends, I decided it was over.

This is not a perfect conversion story and it certainly doesn't contain all of the details, but it gets the point across. I became Catholic because I couldn't help it and to me, that's a good defense of my position. 

In reality, I know you might not feel compelled to come to the same conclusions, but I'm leaving room to write more about it in the following posts. I hope you'll stay tuned.