In regards to the development of doctrine, how far can we go before we start saying that
this isn't a development, this is actually a corruption of doctrine in regards to the
Post-Vatican II area, in regards to the changes in discipline and doctrine?
It seems to me that we're really dealing with a corruption rather than a development.
The article for anyone who wants to see it is that Catholic account.
It's titled Francis on a Plane: Contraception, Doctrinal Development.
And it's all about the way St. Vincent of Lérins, who is a fifth-century church father,
gets quoted in these two really different ways.
And one of the ways he gets quoted is what's sometimes called the Vincentian Canon.
And this is like, you know, a very favorite kind of quotation
from those who are more traditional.
Because Vincent is saying or he's answering your question, like how we can know how we
can avoid heresy.
Like the question he poses at the beginning of his work is what sure and universal rule.
We can hold the Catholic faith in a way from the falsehood of heresy.
And he said everyone, "why is it?" that he asks gives him two answers.
First, by the authority of divine law and then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.
And that we need, in other words, scripture, and then the church's interpretation of Scripture.
And then he lays out what, again, is called the Vincentian Canon and the Vincentian Canon
is that we should hold to that faith which has been believed everywhere, always by all.
So, it's three standards, universality, (1) that it's not just a belief in one little corner
of the church, but is a universal or like global kind of belief, (2) antiquity that this
is not some new belief, but it's something that goes back to the
apostles, back to the early church, and then (3) consent that this wasn't just like a minority
view in the early church.
It's not just a minority view globally, but that this is something that was like really
widespread and actually has a broad appeal.
So his argument is that you can know you're holding to the Catholic faith if you hold
those things.
But, he's also famous for this other thing: that the development of doctrine.
And he's because he in the same work he goes on to say, well shall there then be no progress
in Christ Church?
Certainly, all passes will progress.
But then he lays out some rules for how doctrine can legitimately develop as opposed to illegitimately
develop.
And I like the way G.K.
Chesterton summarizes this, which is that true development of doctrine is like a puppy
becoming a dog, not a puppy slowly becoming a cat or half of a cat.
And so, Vincent distinguishes development like true progress from alteration, which
is just an abandonment of some or all of the Gospel.
But when he when he looks to, well, how can we know if such a thing is a legitimate development
from the fathers?
He gives as I said, he didn't mention canon, but he also tells us to look to the church
and particularly the church at council.
This is in chapter 23 of the comentarium.
He says that the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited
in her charge never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut
off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, that the role of the church,
especially at council, it highlights
the church at council particularly here, is always to draw up more clearly.
What had been taught less clearly in the past or to apply was always been believed to some
new situation.
So to that end, I would say follow the vincentian canon, but also accept that there can be legitimate
development of doctrine.
And one way you can know that a doctrine is legitimate, according to Vincent, is if the
Clinical Council decrees it.