Does Catholic Doctrine Change? A Catholic Answer to Orthodox Objections

Catholics often take for granted the claim that doctrine can develop over time. However, a Catholic inquirer into Orthodoxy will most likely be surprised to find out this is not the case within some quarters of Orthodoxy. For instance, Orthodox priest Fr. Daniel Lattier surveys Orthodox writers on the question and discovers some who claim that “there exists an Orthodox consensus against doctrinal development.” Fr. Lattier does not necessarily agree with this, but he points out that it is a claim made by some prominent Orthodox.  

Part of the problem in this discussion is defining what Catholics mean by development of doctrine. Certainly, some Orthodox have misunderstood what Catholics mean by this, as Fr. Lattier says: 

Some of the Orthodox rejections of DD [development of doctrine] are attributable to misunderstandings about what DD means, which is probably further attributable to a lack of engagement with primary sources on DD. 

There is often an ignorance among the Orthodox about the development of doctrine because they are not familiar with the key documents from Catholics on the concept. Another problem is a failure on the part of some Orthodox to see its roots in the Patristic era. Additionally, for those Orthodox who deny such development, it is hard to claim there have been no doctrinal developments in Eastern Orthodoxy in the last 2,000 years. Let’s examine each of these problems briefly.  

What do Catholics mean by development of doctrine? Some Orthodox think it means that Catholics add to the deposit of faith—i.e., God’s divine revelation handed down to us through his Son and the apostles. In reality, this is not what Catholics mean by development of doctrine. Consider this definition from a Catholic encyclopedia: 

Nothing has been added to or subtracted from the deposit of faith since the death of the last apostle. However, the mysteries revealed by Christ to his apostles are clearer now than they were in the first centuries, through the penetration of these truths by the early Fathers and Doctors of the Church. 

This means that Catholics do not add to divine revelation handed down by Christ and the apostles, but further penetrate its mysteries and implications, especially when new questions arise. For instance, Jesus and the apostles never taught that the use of artificial contraception in a marriage is immoral. Yet that does not mean that the use of contraception would be permitted according to the standard of divine revelation, since it can be argued that the use of contraception would violate certain biblical moral principles. Likewise, it is highly unlikely that the apostle Paul bowed down and kissed icons of the Blessed Virgin Mary. However, it would be wrong to say that the theology that allows for one to venerate icons is foreign to Paul. It is in this sense that one can agree with the seventh ecumenical council (787), which appeals to the apostles for its dogmatic definition on the veneration of icons.  

One thing to stress here is that the deposit of faith never changes. There can never be a development that would substantially break with the Faith handed down by the apostles. If such a thing were to happen, then it would no longer be development we are referring to, but corruption or evolution. Thus, the deposit of faith must always remain substantially the same in every age, but certain implications of the Faith may emerge at a later time. 

Are there Patristic roots for this concept? In fact, there are! St. Vincent of Lérins (d. 445) said the following in the fifth century: 

But some one will say, perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ’s Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the Faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged in itself, alteration that it be transformed into something else.

Note two elements here. One is progress or development. This refers to some kind of change. Yet this concept is mitigated by the claim that there are to be no alterations to the Faith.  

Think of a small human child growing into an adult. It is true that there are some developments and progress to the child’s growth. However, one cannot say such changes constitute alterations to the person’s substance, since this would mean the human child no longer remains human, but becomes something else, like a tree. Clearly, it is impossible to have a human child change into a tree and to simultaneously claim there have been no substantial changes to the child.

To better understand this issue and how Catholics can respond to common Orthodox objections, get your copy of Answering Orthodoxy by Michael Lofton today!