Newman Reading Group, Intro. chapter

[AngelicDoctor]

Reading Group: John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, #1 Introduction chapter). Read it and enter our discussion: newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html
Well, I could not put the book down for the intro. chapter, and I guess I will start with a question for clarification:

I have a question about how you guys read the discussion in sections 11-14 (pp. 15-20 of the Notre Dame edition of the book):

I would like to confirm the main distinction that Newman makes in section 13 of the Introduction. Do you all think that his distinction is something like the following?:

1.the first type of examination of the early fathers is an unfair interpretation and application of Vincentius’ rule (orthodoxy = “that which is believed always, everywhere, and by everyone”) because:

-it limits our view of the ante-Nicean Church Fathers to what they expressly/explicitly state…

-(and that this does not work because often the complex components and nuances of the given doctrine are not found or are even contradicted within the writings and formulations of a given Father).

-for example, some fathers may vaguely state a orthodox belief in the trinity–by "mentioning a Three–and yet, they may just be silent about whether or not the 3 (Father, Son, HS) are one, co-equal, all uncreated, all omnipotent, etc.). Or, what is worse, they may also have unorthodox/heterodox) views when they do expound on the specific parts of their teaching, or on its consequences.

[example: “Tertullian is the most formal and elaborate of these Fathers in his statements of the Catholic doctrine [of the Trinity]”… “Yet Tertullian must be considered heterodox on the doctrine of our Lord’s eternal generation.”-section 14]

(See sections 11-13 for all of this)

1. the second type of examination of the early fathers:

-provides positive proof that a given father supported a particular doctrine simply by showing that they used the term (like “Trinity” for example) or by showing that the concept was somehow expressed in the liturgy (as in doxologies, for example).

Is Newman just saying that you cannot press Vincentius’ rule so far that you expect fully developed/pure orthodoxy (without any admixture of anything now considered innacurate) within a given Father’s statement about a particular doctrine? Is he just saying that that is too much to demand,… that if the father in question is not 100% orthodox and 100% clear on a doctrine, then he cannot be cited as evidence for the doctrine’s authenticity?

 

[AngelicDoctor]

I have not read all of the foreward by Ian Ker yet, but I found one thing that might be a hint to my question. On page xix of the foreward, he 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.

Please reply with feedback and/or bring up your own questions/reflections on anything in that intro. chapter.

 

[Sherlock]

Hello AngelicDoctor,

Aaargh—I haven’t been able to spend time at the computer much today, so I’m only able to say that I finished Ker’s Foreward and am partially through the introduction. I will post tomorrow morning regarding your question. Thanks for starting off the discussion.

 

[Sherlock]

Hello AngelicDoctor,

I would add to your list of reasons why the first interpretation of Vincentius’ rule (that is, narrowed to exclude Rome) is problematic for determining orthodoxy, this: that although it might serve to strike at some Catholic doctrines, it would also serve to strike at the other doctrines that are not contested, such as that of the Trinity. And, of course, when the second interpretation is used (relaxed to admit doctrines accepted by the Anglicans) it no longer excludes certain Catholic doctrines that Anglicans deny. I think that Newman does a brilliant job here of pointing out the difficulties in maintaining this position.

You asked, “Is Newman just saying that you cannot press Vincentius’ rule so far that you expect fully developed/pure orthodoxy (without any admixture of anything now considered innacurate) within a given Father’s statement about a particular doctrine? Is he just saying that that is too much to demand,… that if the father in question is not 100% orthodox and 100% clear on a doctrine, then he cannot be cited as evidence for the doctrine’s authenticity?”

My take is that Newman is showing the inadequacy of using Vincentius’ rule, period—even when used, as he says, fairly (that is, not being used to exclude Rome). For instance, the positive evidence in the writings of the Fathers for the Trinity is hardly extensive, as well as complicated by the varying orthodoxy of individual Fathers on various doctrines, and thus might not meet the requirements of Vicentius’ rule. Yet the Trinity is accepted as orthodox doctrine.

What do you think?

Sherlock

 

[AngelicDoctor]

Sherlock:

although it might serve to strike at some Catholic doctrines, it would also serve to strike at the other doctrines that are not contested, such as that of the Trinity. And, of course, when the second interpretation is used (relaxed to admit doctrines accepted by the Anglicans) it no longer excludes certain Catholic doctrines that Anglicans deny.

My take is that Newman is showing the inadequacy of using Vincentius’ rule, period—even when used, as he says, fairly (that is, not being used to exclude Rome).

–Sherlock, what you say sounds right to me. I think he is basically showing the inadequacy of Vincentius’ rule–period. Also, I think that he is showing your first point (that I quoted above) rather clear when he discusses how their may be more unambiguous patristic evidence for papal supremamcy (Catholic belief) rather than the Real Presence in the Eucharist (which Newman lists among the doctrines that the Anglicans also believe). Sherlock, I think that you have a clear vision which will be a fine help in this project.
I will be away from my computer for the next 3 days, so I will not be able to read any more posts until I get back. And then, starting next Tuesday we can start delving into chapter 1, eh?

 

[AngelicDoctor]

One last thought on this introduction chapter: I once read an article in the journal First Things about the question of the ordination of women to the priesthood. The pro-women’s ordination position was argued by a Protestant pastor. Among other parts of her argument, she invoked Vincentius of Lerins’ rule about orthodoxy being that which was always believed always, everywhere, and by everyone. She proceeded to say that no one was more wrong in the history of the Church than Vincentius.

In speaking about some of the doctrinal battles of the early Church (Arianism, Nestorianism, etc.) she said that orthodox positions were not peaceably held everywhere, by everyone, and at all times. Rather, orthodoxy was that which was the end-result of a long and intense tooth-and-nails fight. Her point was that just because the Church had not previously accepted or practiced women’s ordination, this did not mean that it could not become the orthodox position. The dialogue is going on, the struggle is occurring, we have to discuss that matter and then see where the discussion takes us.

It is true that the Holy Spirit worked through the Church to come to the truth, and that this was often done through hard-fought battles. However, I think that this is probably an example of setting up Vincentius’ rule as a straw man so as to easily knock it down thereby attempting to discredit Sacred Tradition and the guidance of the magisterium. Well, perhaps we will see what Cardinal Newman puts in the place of Vincentius’ rule so that we can arrive at an authentic understanding of the development of doctrine. (instead of just saying that anything is possible)

PS: besides Sherlock, where are the rest of you out there? Where is everyone else? please weigh in… Remember, it takes two to tango, but it takes at least 6 or 7 to form a mosh pit.

Tomorrow (Tuesday) we can begin to read and post on chapter 1 (whoever posts first, do so in a new thread).

 

[Sherlock]

Mornin’, AngelicDoctor,

You wrote “Remember, it takes two to tango, but it takes at least 6 or 7 to form a mosh pit”.

Hah! Now that is good…is that your own creation? I haven’t heard it before…

Anyway, I echo your sentiments: I hope that we can form a mosh pit here to discuss Newman.

Before I go into the first chapter, some final thoughts on the introduction:

Most of us are familiar with Newman’s famous quote, “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant”. And there it was, in context, right at the end of Chapter 5 of the introduction…very cool.

The introduction primarily addresses the Church of England’s stance—the “via media”. Question: do Anglicans today still view their church that way?

I’ve only finished the introduction and already I feel the inadequacy of my knowledge. (I’m sure this will only deepen.) For instance, he refers to Chillingworth, Hooker, and other writers without explanation, clearly expecting that his audience will be familiar with their names: “Of the Greek, the judgement of Hooker is well known…” It has sparked my interest in finding out more about these writers.

AngelicDoctor, do you happen to recall when that article appreared in First Things? It would be an interesting read. (Actually, I would guess that I could go to their website and type in “women’s ordination” and see what comes up.)

From what you write, I would say that yes, it appears that the pro-women’s ordination writer was using Vincentius’ rule as a straw man. And, of course, the logical extensions of her conclusion do not conveniently stop right after she gets what she wants, so to speak—as you point out, it leads to the position that anything is possible.

 

[AngelicDoctor]

Sherlock,

If you have not yet searched, I think the First Thing articles can be found at the following links:

original article, April 2003 issue:
firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0304/articles/ferrarawilson.html

The full quote by Sarah Hinlicky Wilson (her article follows the Catholic view by convert Jennifer Ferrara) is as follows:

“To consider the ordination of women is to take a plunge into the rich depths of Christian theology. It is a wild ride indeed, with high stakes, fierce debates, and all sides burning for the purity of the gospel. This is to be expected. Though Vincent of Lérins defined orthodoxy as that which has been believed “everywhere, always, by all,” he was, unfortunately, wrong. Orthodoxy has been a battle from the get-go, as the apostolic epistles amply demonstrate. An appeal to the unchanging teaching of the Church does little justice to the Church Fathers who engaged their whole minds and souls in the defense and articulation of the truth, based on Scripture, reason, liturgy, peculiar strands of philosophy, and sundry other allies they mustered to their side. Studies in the history of doctrine demonstrate that there is development in the teaching of the Church. We are at the crossroads of what will become either a further development or a heresy tossed aside.”

Incidentally, feedback in the letters section can be found in the Correspondence section of August/September issue:
firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0308/correspondence.html#women

More later… (and yes, I confess with some self-pride, that I did make up the mosh pit line…even I have my moments of creative brilliance).