On the one hand, the church of Rome formally denies continuing revelation. The age of public revelation ended with the apostles. As a result, the Roman church must appeal to the theory of development to justify its theological innovations.
On the other hand, the church of Rome nurtures belief in Marian apparitions. Now only is Mary said to appear to groups or individuals at different times and places during the course of church history, but she reveals things about the future, such as the “Fatima Prophecies.”
To be sure, the church of Rome is wary about making official pronouncements concerning this or that apparition. But the Roman church is certainly open to that possibility. Indeed, it positively encourages pious belief in certain reported apparitions of the BVM.
But what is this if not a theory of continuing revelation? If the “Fatima Prophecies” were true, how would that be essentially different from NT prophecies regarding the future?
Likewise, if Mary can (and does) touch down to disclose certain things which are not already revealed in the Bible, then why does the Roman church need a theory of development? Indeed, why does the Roman church even need a teaching office? It has a living prophetess in the person of Mary. Who needs the pope when you have Mary? She outranks the pope. If Mary can pop in to unveil new truths, then the papacy and the development of doctrine are pretty superfluous.