I’ve been reading the blog of Teófilo de Jesús called Vivificat. His blog reveals a calmly considered reflection on Eastern Christianity. He was a Catholic who converted to Orthodoxy and converted back to Catholicism. His story is fascinating.

In one of the comments, a reader writes:

Orthodox don’t hold the Newmanite notion of doctrinal development in high regard.”

Yes, that would be an overstatement. But let’s look at whether the Orthodox have “doctrine of development” as well.

Blessed John Henry Newman of the nineteenth century posited a theory of doctrinal development. Blesssed John Henry (who was a major influence in my conversion from Anglicanism to Catholicism) stated that doctrines development but do not change. A tiny oak sapling in 1950 is the same tree as the massive oak tree in my front yard in 2015. Same tree. Same genetic information. However, it’s now larger. Nobody would truthfully say, “That is not the same tree.”

The same goes for the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church of AD 80 and AD 1980 look different, but it’s the same tree.

The Eastern Orthodox (and even some Catholic trads) like to mock Blessed John Henry Newman’s notion of development. I once gave a talk related to Newman at the University of Dallas, and in the Q&A afterward and older gentleman explained how Newman was never really Catholic and that this “nonsense” about development had to go.

Eastern Orthodox Polemic Against the Doctrine of Development

Eastern Orthodox polemicists also mock the Newmanite notion of develoment. The Easter Orthodox do, however, possess a Newmanite notion of the development of doctrine…they just don’t admit it. Let’s look at some examples:

1. For example, the rallying term of the First Nicene Council, homoousios (consubstantial), was originally a heretical tag in the East. The Gnostics such as Basilides were the first to use it. Later Sabellians (heresy that says Father = Son = Spirit) used the term homoousion. Even Saint Basil the Great was original opposed to the use of homoousion, though he later developed his thinking on it and rallied to the term.But the the theology of homoousion was “developed” into a an orthodox formulary. We say that God the Son is homoousion (consubstantial) with God the Father (ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί). Sorry, Orthodox friends. That’s a “development of doctrine.”
2. Another example is that of icons. The theology of iconography, the iconostasis, and their place is Eastern spirituality developed. If you went back the Apostles, they would know nothing of the distinctions of the 7th Ecumenical Council…although once described, the Apostles would have agreed.
3. Another example is the nearly universal Orthodox acceptance of the Cyrillian Miaphysite Christology. At the Council of Chalcedon, the heresy of Eutychian Monophysitism was condemned. This heresy taught that the humanity of Christ mixed or dissolved into the divinity of Christ like a drop vinegar into the ocean. There heresy held that there was only one nature (mono physis) in Christ.However, the Orthodox Churches that were allegedly monophysite (The Egyptian Coptic Orthodox) are not Eutychian Monophysites, but rather followers of the phraseology of Saint Cyril of Alexandria who said not “only one nature” (monophysite) but “one nature” (miaphysite). In previous ages the Orthodox condemned the Egyptian Christians as Monophysite, but nearly all contemporary Orthodox bishops and scholars accept the Oriental Miaphysite Christology as Orthodox or as “Chalcedon plus Cyril”. Again, development.
4. I think it’s fair to say that the Orthodox obsession with the Pentarchy of the Five Ancient Sees is also a development. It’s not apostolic ecclesiology…but a development.

Doctrine doesn’t change, but it does develop. It develops because humans need more and more clarity over time. The Church does not add to the deposit of faith, she unpacks the deposit of faith.

[reminder]