The Affective Mode of Doctrinal Development

Comparsion between the affective and intellectual life in the development of doctrine

There are two significant questions when theologians consider the problem of the development of doctrine, 1. The relationship of the development objectively with divine revelation, 2. The channels whereby doctrinal development occurs.

The first question considers the immortal debates between the great theologians of all three great eras of scholasticism, whether they be the debates between the Nominalists/Scotists and Thomists in the first era, the debates between Suarez, Lugo, Molina, and others in the second era, or the debates within the Dominican school in the third era. Here, we ask questions like “can a theological conclusion be assented to by the assent of faith before the definition of the Church?” “Can a theological conclusion be defined as of faith?” etc.

Yet, the second question is equally as interesting and received much impetus via the controversies during the time of the modernist crisis, especially around certain criticisms of some of St. John Henry Newman’s formulations (which ought to be defended with benign interpretations of his less mature reflections, cf., here).

The debates about the “organs” of development asks a more historically grounded question, although obviously one with a basis in theological principles: where do these developments arise from? Here, there is commonly distinguished two organs, the intellectual and the affective.