briefly, on the development of Doctrine

[Instaurare omnia]

FYI: The following Twitter thread posted by Fr. Peter Totleben OP (that is one interesting surname, btw) is notable given what has been emitting recently from the Vatican and its lay groupies.

A working hypothesis. There are two ways in which doctrine develops:
(1) When something virtually revealed is drawn out explicitly (usually with the help of philosophical insight). (eg) From the Biblical confession of Jesus as Son of God, Son of Man, Word, Lord and Christ, we confess him as one person in two natures.
(2) When the Church makes a judgment on a contemporary matter by applying principles (not always revealed), she subsequently comes to greater clarity about what is a matter of principle and what is accidental to the situation.
(eg) A lot of stuff that 19th century popes taught about the relation of the church and the state, democracy, etc. It takes time to disambiguate true political principles from what is accidental to the political situation of the time.

Also, it's important to note that "Doctrine develops" is not itself a teaching of the Church, but rather an observation about how the Church has, in fact, taught.
In neither case does the truth in question change or develop, nor do we light on new truths. Truth is unchanging, and the deposit of faith was closed with the death of the last apostle. What changes and develops is the clarity with which the Church teaches the truth.

So, the difference between (1) and (2) is that in (1) we start with something that is divinely revealed (though it may be combined with something that is not).
(2) is different because it involves non-revealed truths that the Church teaches, for which it lacks the negative guarantee of infallibility, even while the Church is teaching in the midst of a particular historical context. Hence the need for a kind of "development"
But even here, "development" does not mean that what used to be true is true no longer.

[Michael Wilson]

This is another attempt to justify Vatican II's departure and contradiction of previous Papal teaching, by diminishing the authority of the latter. There is no doctrinal development that ends up in a contradiction; the teaching condemning Religious Liberty up until the death of Pius XII, is not based on transitory political events, but based on the fact that there is only one true Church, that has been established by God Himself, as the only means of salvation; men are obliged under pain of damnation to incorporate themselves into this Church; and only have a "right" to adore God in this Church.
The condemnation of the modern principles of society introduced in the French Revolution, again are not based on transitory political or epochal events, but on the obligation of all men, whether individually or collectively in a government of a country, to confess and adore Our Lord Jesus Christ as God and the redeemer of the world. And etc. etc.

[Instaurare omnia]

Funny how, when I look at the date when I posted that, it seems so long ago, yet not even three weeks have gone by. It seems that the St. Gertrude's prayer has had an effect as to what concerns me and -- more interestingly -- what no longer does. Prayer and the Liturgy and the narrow gate are what matter. As for the "development of doctrine", well, it's not something I need to pursue. 

[Michael Wilson]

Prayer, prayer and more prayer; that is what the saints have taught us.