Tilting at Windmills?

Kepha at Fides Quaerens Intellectum in the thread, The (Catholic?) Need for Development, wrote the following:

I’ve begun to wonder, how much of all that we’ve been discussing here (i.e., sensus fidelium, ecclesial intuition, ”material sufficiency,” implicit and unconscious dogma, etc.) is necessitated by a need peculiar to Rome? It is interesting that these various epistemological attempts all coincide with the rise of the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility, and the Bodily Assumption. (Kepha)

The above comes after a quote from John E. Thiel’s recent book, Senses of Tradition. However, prior to the portion that Kepha’s cites, Thiel speaks of numerous other models of development, invoking Johannes Stöhr’s, “Conceptual Models in the Understanding of Development”, who, “distinguished eight depictions of doctrinal development”, with the following labels: “fixed”, “progress”, “regress”, “syncretist”, “rediscovery of beginnings”, “clarification of knowledge”, and the “synthesis of dialectical oppositions”. (pp. 57, 58.) [Note: many other models of DD have been presented by other authors/scholars.]

Thiel continues with brief descriptions of each of the models:

The “fixed” model represents the movement of tradition as the constant repetition of a once-given apostolic truth. The “progress” model images each movement in tradition as an advance, as a step beyond an ecclesial present being ever redefined. The “regress” model applies the analogy of cultural decline and death to the doctrinal tradition in order to explain an instance of loss of meaning in the communication of faith. The “syncretist” model attributes development to the influence of a culture-at-large upon the culture of the gospel message through which the latter is accommodated to the former, though not necessarily in a pejorative manner. The “rediscovery of beginnings” model sees the movement of tradition as a repristination of its primal and insuperably authoritative teachings. The “organic” model appeals to the analogy of life to depict the development of doctrine as a growth from earlier to later, and more mature, expressions of faith. The “clarification of knowledge” model envisages more developed doctrines as the refinement of an idea of consciousness in the course of time. And the “synthesis of dialectical oppositions” model conceives the tradition as the historical encounter of conflicting Christian claims from which resolved doctrinal true emerges. (p. 58)

Thiel then writes:

One can readily agree with Stöhr that, among the options that he has sketched, the organic model conveys most clearly the compatibility of development and continuity. But Stöhr’s classification may be to too quick to identify the organic model with authentic development—what I have labeld “development-in-continuity”—to the exclusion of a consideration of elements of authentic development in the “syncretist,” “clarification of knowledge,” and the “synthesis of dialectical oppositions” models…these three models are better understood as various expressions of the organic model’s basic assumption that the tradition’s development-in-continuity is a growth conceived as the unfolding of a givenness preserved as it matures in time. In addition to this shared assumption, Stöhr’s “organic,” “synthesis of dialectical oppositions,” “clarification of knowledge,” and “syncretist” models all describe particular theories of tradition as a development-in-continuity that have appeared in nineteenth- and twentieth century Catholic theology. (p. 59)

Thiel renames the last three models: “the dialectical, the noetic, and the reception”, and follows this with a treatment of each model, including the organic which keeps its original name. (pp. 59ff.)

Now back to Kepha’s somewhat puzzling contribution. I cannot help but wonder if Kepha has chosen to ignore the fact that the “epistemological attempts” he listed, “(i.e., sensus fidelium, ecclesial intuition, ”material sufficiency,” implicit and unconscious dogma, etc.),” all have one or more representatives among the early Church Fathers, or if he is just unaware of this.

I am also left wondering if he actually believes that the various forms of Protestantism lack the need for a theory of the development of doctrine—certainly such works as Peter Toon’s, The Development of Doctrine in the Church; Rolf Pöhler’s, Continuity and Change in Christian Doctrine; Jaroslav Pelikan’s, Development of Christian Doctrine; James Orr’s, Progress in Dogma; and Maurice Wiles’, The Making of Christian Doctrine and The Remaking of Christan Doctrine (among so many others) suggest otherwise.


Grace and peace,

David