Newman Reading Group, CHAPTER 1

[AngelicDoctor]

Reading Group: John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Chapter 1: On development in ideas). Read it and enter our discussion–all are welcome:
newmanreader.org/works/development/chapter1.html

SUMMARY (PART 1 of 2)
To spur on discussion and peak interest of anyone browsing this post, I will first present a summary of some of the main points in this first chapter (where he lays some philosphical groundwork). (I will do so in two parts, because it is a bit long). Then, I will post some personal reflections. Sherlock and the rest of you, please join in!
SECTION I: on the process of the development of ideas.

-it is a characteristic of our minds that we immediately pass judgment on objects that we apprehend (we abstract, classify, compare, contrast, generalize, relate, etc.).

-ideas which represent an object are the sum totals of these aspects and judgments,… and these aspects and judgments–and thus these ideas about an object–can vary among different peoples’ minds.

-There is no one aspect deep enough to exhaust the contents of a real idea, no one term or proposition which will serve to define it; though one representation of it is more just and exact than another… Newman asks what the “leading idea” of Christianity is–for convenience sake (as an organizing principle for all doctrines of the faith) he suggests the Incarnation.

-But he then notes that ‘one aspect of Revelation must not be allowed to exclude or obscure another; and Christianity is dogmatical, devotional, practical all at once…’ (this will be important, I think)

-When an idea is of a nature to arrest and possess the mind, it may be said to have life–to live in the mind which is its recipient… when such an idea is brought into the public forum, it is not simply received by all passively in the original form. Rather, it becomes an active principle within those who contemplate the idea, and leads them to apply it in various directions.

-a process ensues: time of confusion–conceptions and misconceptions in conflict, new lights are brought to bear on original statement of doctrine, judgments and aspects accumulate, a definite teaching emerges and a consolidation occurs such that this more refined doctrine begins to be contemplated and held by many people. Then this doctrine is surveyed in relation to other doctrines or facts, to established customs, to circumstances of time and place, to other religions and philosophies, etc. The idea enters into the social realm and may in time grow into an ethical code, a system of government, a theology, a ritual, etc.

-This resulting body of thought is the proper representative of one idea–being in substance what that idea meant from the first, its complete image as seen in a combination of diversified aspects…

-This process Newman calls development–the germination and maturation of some truth or apparent truth on a large mental field. This development is not one worked out on paper, but rather is carried on through and by means of communities of men and their leaders and guides, etc.

-an idea is modified by the state of things in which it is carried out: it can be interrupted, retarded, mutilated, distorted by external violence; it may be impeded or absorbed by counter energetic ideas, depraved by intrusion of foreign influences, or shattered by the development of some original fault within it.

see part 2 of summary to follow…

 

[AngelicDoctor]

SUMMARY (part 2 of 2)

SECTION II: on the kinds of development in ideas
central doctrine of Christianity = Incarnation (from which all else flows, I guess)

-political development: When society and its various classes and interests are the subject- matter of the ideas which are in operation. e.g. the Episcopate (as taught by St. Ignatius of Antioch)

-logical development: e.g. Theotokos (Mary = mother of Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ = God + man, Mary = mother of God)

-historical development: Judgments and explanations of persons/facts/events spread through a community, and with time, attain general reception. e.g. the development of the canon of the NT, or the determination of the date of our Lord’s birth

-ethical/moral development: certain relations imply certain duties, and certain objects demand certain acts and feelings. e.g. what is predicated of the second and third persons of the Trinity in Scripture gives warrant and indirectly commands that we should pay them divine honors; other examples–prayers for the dead (what we believe about the communion of saints, and hope for eternal life implies we should pray, etc.); and the Holy Eucharist

-metaphysical development: i.e. the Athanasian Creed

One quote in particular gives a good definition of the development of doctrine:

“The mind which is habituated to the thought of God, of Christ, of the Holy Spirit, naturally turns with a devout curiosity to the contemplation of the object of its adoration, and begins to form statements concerning it, before it knows whither, or how far, it will be carried. One proposition necessarily leads to another, and a second to a third; then some limitation is required; and the combination of these opposites occasions some fresh evolutions from the original idea, which indeed can never be said to be entirely exhausted. This process is its development, and results in a series, or rather body, of dogmatic statements, till what {53} was an impression on the Imagination has become a system or creed in the Reason.” (Section 9, p. 52)

Lastly, he makes a distinction between cases where one doctrine develops out of another (like Penance from Baptism), and yet where both are still distinct doctrines; and, on the other hand, cases where various doctrines are simply portions of an original impression, or modes of representation of that original impression (i.e. the various ideas associated with the Trinity or the Incarnation).

-he also notes that in the case of the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation–the idea (like God, Himself) is one, … one prays to and worships a unified person, not an assemblage of ideas. (the spiritual person can relate to God’s one-ness).
-and yet, Creeds are necessary because the human mind cannot reflect on the idea of God except in piecemeal and fragmentary ways.
WHAT DID/DO YOU ALL THINK?.. PLEASE REPLY

 

[AngelicDoctor]

REFLECTIONS/QUESTIONS/COMMENTS…

Newman on ecumenism?..

In reading chapter 1, one quote in particular struck me. When he is talking about political development he writes the following:
“Sometimes discordant ideas are for a time connected and concealed by a common profession or name. Such is the case of coalitions in politics and comprehensions in religion, of which commonly no good is to be expected. Such is an ordinary function of committees and boards, and the sole aim of conciliations and concessions, to make contraries look the same, and to secure an outward agreement where there is no other unity.” (chapter 1, section 3; p. 44)

I wondered with a smile … could this quote by Newman in 1845 be applied, to some extent, to the contemporary ecumenical movement of the 21st century? Granted, that would be a rather bleak assessment of ecumenism. However, from the few agreement statements that I have read, it is not uncommon that theologians from the two sides come up with a diplomatic but vague statement of agreement on a given doctrine, only to remark in follow up documents that their repsective ecclesial authorities back home did not agree and were not pleased.
Some ecumenism can be just a superficial masking of differences that never get to the heart of what really needs to be discussed (authority, for example). But, ecumenism at its best is good–hashing through differences, explaining our different vocabularies, and establishing where we really do agree so that we can go on from there.

Just a thought.

 

[Sherlock]

Hello AngelicDoctor,

You did an excellent job of summarizing. I have some thoughts to add, but I’m afraid they will have to wait a little while as I don’t have much time to post tonight, and will then be gone for the next two days. I hope others will join in the discussion.

I also thought your reflections on ecumenism and Newman’s quote regarding political development were accurate.

Later…

 

[AngelicDoctor]

OK Sherlock, I look forward to hearing your thoughts when you get back…

More on implied and explicit reason…

On the first thread, in our discussion about the Introduction Chapter, I asked a question about how we can accept the testimony of certain Church fathers who provide partial, incomplete (and even not purely orthodox) evidence for a given belief. I then noted Newman’s distinction between implied and explicit reason… that maybe some early fathers (and when all are taken together) explicitly articulated only part of a doctrine, but seemed to evidence an implicit understanding of the other more complete aspects of a doctrine… they had a sense for it, but could not articulate it:​

July 15th, I wrote:
On page xix of the foreward, he (Ian Kerr) discusses Newman’s distinction between “implied and explicit reason”:

“Nor is the ‘absence, or partial absence, or incompleteness of dogmatic statements’ any 'proof of the absence of impressions or implicit judgments, in the mind of the Church. Even centuries might pass without the formal expression of a truth, which had been all along the secret life of millions of faithful souls.” (underlined = my emphasis)

Perhaps if a given father used the term Trinity, for example, this could still be used as support for the doctrine’s authenticity even if his expression of the doctrine is incomplete (by not explaining how the 3 persons are co-equal, for example). Maybe it was the case that these fathers had a true impression of the doctrine but were yet unable to give any intelligible account of it.

---

Now, in reading Chapter 1, I also noted the following passage from Newman which might further add to our understanding of this:

“Thus conscience, the existence of which we cannot deny, is a proof of the doctrine of a Moral Governor, which alone gives it a meaning and a scope; that is, the doctrine of a Judge and Judgment to come is a development of the phenomenon of conscience. Again, it is plain that passions and affections are in action in our minds before the presence of their proper objects; and their activity would of course be an antecedent argument of extreme cogency in behalf of the real existence of those legitimate objects, supposing them unknown.” (Ch. 1, section 7, p. 48, my emphasis).