.png "English"){kind=small}
Fr. Daniel Lattier
Newman‘s theory of doctrinal development proposes that
divine revelation has been given once and for all, but that the Church
is still growing in its understanding of this revelation. This growth
sometimes results in new doctrinal definitions, which require
confirmation of their truth by an infallible authority. The essence of
Newman‘s theory has been received as compatible with Roman Catholic
theology, and constitutes a hermeneutical lens through which Roman
Catholics view the categories of revelation, Tradition, and authority.
On the contrary, many leading Orthodox theologians of the twentieth and
twenty-first centuries have expressed serious reservations about the
idea of doctrinal development, leading one to wonder if there are some
unexamined hermeneutical disagreements between Roman Catholics and
Orthodox on these categories.
In order to respond to these Orthodox reservations, I constructed the dissertation as a dialogue between Newman and Florovsky on doctrinal development. More specifically, I arranged the dissertation as a dialogue between Newman and Florovsky on their understandings of revelation, Tradition, and authority—categories implied in the idea of doctrinal development. The first goal of the dissertation is to show that Newman‘s theory of doctrinal development is in fact compatible with Orthodox understandings of revelation and Tradition. The understanding of authority in Newman‘s theory does not currently share this compatibility, but dialogue does offer the opportunity for mutual enrichment of Newman‘s and Florovsky‘s thought on this category. A second goal is to expose Newman‘s theory to Orthodox categories of thought in the hopes of further developing Newman‘s theory itself. One of the principal developments that results from this exposure is the clarification that Newman‘s theory is a function of the incarnational character of his theology. Showing that the affirmation of doctrinal development follows from an incarnational, or Christocentric, theology represents the third and final goal of this dissertation.
In order to respond to these Orthodox reservations, I constructed the dissertation as a dialogue between Newman and Florovsky on doctrinal development. More specifically, I arranged the dissertation as a dialogue between Newman and Florovsky on their understandings of revelation, Tradition, and authority—categories implied in the idea of doctrinal development. The first goal of the dissertation is to show that Newman‘s theory of doctrinal development is in fact compatible with Orthodox understandings of revelation and Tradition. The understanding of authority in Newman‘s theory does not currently share this compatibility, but dialogue does offer the opportunity for mutual enrichment of Newman‘s and Florovsky‘s thought on this category. A second goal is to expose Newman‘s theory to Orthodox categories of thought in the hopes of further developing Newman‘s theory itself. One of the principal developments that results from this exposure is the clarification that Newman‘s theory is a function of the incarnational character of his theology. Showing that the affirmation of doctrinal development follows from an incarnational, or Christocentric, theology represents the third and final goal of this dissertation.
Continue Reading
