What About "Development of Doctrine"?

Two More Reasons Wes Huff Should Be Catholic — The Mass & Development of Doctrine
Catholic Bible Highlights | 3 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrDHoVs4GkA

18:24 As it is carried out by some, I don't like it either.

Matthieu Lavagna described an answer to Rennes, 1830 (Dz 2272—74) as a "key moment in the development of doctrine".

It was a local decision, only later made accessible to the Church universal, as I comprehend, and the key in the question was that someone who wanted to take interest was supposed to promise to abide by a future decision by the Pope on the matter.

To Matthieu Lavagna, this means taking interest is in and of itself licit, now.

He also cited a part of the code of 1917 where those taking care of ecclesiastic property are told to place investments in low risk and licit placements. To me that doesn't sound like a bank account with interest, but as buying shares in a low risk company.

1950 has been described as a key moment in the development of doctrine as well, while Pope Pius XII simply refused to decide on whether it was licit to say Adam had biological ancestry.

Even more absurd is describing 1822 as allowing Catholics to believe Heliocentrism.

19:13 Exsurge Domine versus Dignitatis Humanae.

Probably not Wes' fav example, since he probably prefers religious freedom.

19:54 Apologia played a role in mine.

I'm glad I didn't come across Essay at this point.

As to enthusiasts for this work, I like to remind that this is not his Catholic viewpoint as already received in the Church and having received instruction, it's his motivation from an Anglican standpoint on why to quit Anglicanism for Rome.

Loads of things that are very well attested in early tradition would have been inaccessible to him at Littlemore (I think his last Anglican abode was) and so he would have made sense of them by supposing "development of doctrine" even if this was not the case.

20:16 I have since 2001 built my writing on debating, first on forums and later on quora and under youtubes, as one main staple.

You are free to respond, unless I get delays in viewing the answers, the responses and my responses to them will usually get into the blog post.

Nobody wants serious debate anymore?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE-Z9r5Fa3k

[This is the whole film My Name is Nobody, but my answer to the rhetorical question was simply the title. I very much like the film, though!]

20:48 I'll give at least one proof text of Trent disagreeing with the as yet Anglican Newman's thesis.

Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,–in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, –wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; [Page 20] or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.

What is key in forbidden exegesis?

Relying on his own skill?
Interpreting without asking the Church first?

No, coming to contradict:

• the sense that the Church hath held and doth hold
• the unanimous consent of the Fathers

This presumes that a sense that the Church doth hold normally is one She hath held and that the Fathers typically consent.

21:05 Going to Armstrong:

Did they believe that God really has a material palace in the sky and that He received His Son in a decorated state chair placed a little to the right of His own? — or did they not?

Quoted from CSL.

Very obviously, if Jesus remains true Man after the Resurrection, if it makes any sense to speak of Him having a body (which can "bilocate" — using the term losely — to altars and communicants) or Him still being the Son of Mary, as some radical Protestants deny, I've actually come across that, He is in a material place, presumably a palace with a decorated state chair.

Whether God the Father is also visible in some kind of theophany is another question.

But God the Son became Man, and therefore He is now in the kind of tabernacles He would have eaten in while walking on Earth, and not just the tabernacles in the churches (with valid apostolic succession). That means, Heaven is not another dimension.

"The Church knew the answer (that God has no body and therefore couldn’t sit in a chair) as soon as it knew the question."

False. God as God has no body, but is still capable of theophany and can therefore sit in a chair just as much as He can dine with Abraham in Mamre. God the Son as Man very clearly has a body and therefore very habitually can sit in a chair or take a walk on streets of gold.

21:23 Maybe, just maybe, St. Pius X was, like me, preferring Apologia or Arians of the IV C. over Essay?

22:46 "as Cardinal Newman formulated it"

In 1845, when writing the book, Newman was not a Cardinal, he was a celebrity convert on OCIA (or equivalent) asked to sum up why, as an up to then Anglican he had decided to Pope. (Or, if you prefer, to Cross the Tiber).

24:09 As an ex-Lutheran I find it disheartening to see Bergoglio with a chocolate statue of ML. Yes, the man from the WWW cities ...

24:29 Lutherans did kill Catholics in Sweden and Denmark (to which respectively Finland and Norway-Iceland belonged).

It was somewhat less common than in England on Tyburn, but it was not all that rare either.

24:57 I'm historically in favour of killing for obstinate heresy.

I e, I hold it was one of the ways in which "ho katekhon" did his job.

I also hold, "ho katekhon" as in the Roman Emperor was taken out of the way in 1918. In 2004, when I was on El Camino de Santiago, I was told Spain was introducing gay marriage. So much for saving a Catholic society in Spain by bringing back the Inquisition. Can't be done any more.

St. Thomas clearly stated that one main reason for killing heretics was to delay the advent of the Antichrist, his precursor was the one taking Nicolas II out of the way, i e Lenin. The Inquisition has become pointless and in 2004 I learned this was even the case in La Hispanidad.

26:01 Luther was in a hopeless muddle.

If Catholicism had no poison, why establish something outside it?
If it lacked salvific truth, where was the Church in ... 1401 (I'd have said 1516 if I didn't know Luther credited John Hus with full truth)? And if the answer was "nowhere" what did that make of Matthew 28:16—20?

He had to want to have it both ways.

26:31 "all the mainline denominations are pro-abortion"

Sadly true of CoS.

Do we see some lion mouth and leopard head, somewhere?