Newman's «Grammar of Assent»

[Geremia]

A Jesuit who told me about Newman’s Grammar of Assent. He said it and Newman’s Development of Christian Doctrine are very useful for understanding our “present situation.” Since Newman certainly was an “Invisible [Vatican II] Council Father,” the Jesuit is right.

Larson’s “Does God Love Us: An Examination of the Epistemology of John Henry Newman” and Sartino’s “Another Look at John Henry Cardinal Newman” are very valuable, especially the section in the latter on The Grammar of Assent. These two articles make it clear than Newman’s thought was the progenitor of Modernism’s schizophrenia regarding faith and reason. In fact, Modernists Loisy and Tyrrell considered themselves “devout follower[s ] of Newman.”

“Real assent” with the “illative sense” versus “notional assent”—the former being more real and the latter including dogma—is a false dichotomy. Larson very convincingly shows that this false dichotomy is the origin of Modernism’s depreciation of dogma as lacking a vitality which each individual believer should supplement with his own personal faith experiences. This is uncannily reminiscent of Pascendi’s description of the Modernists’ "vital immanence."

Read at least pages 12-25 of “Another Look at Newman” pertaining to Newman’s Grammar of Assent. “Another Look at Newman” shows how Grammar of Assent espouses nominalist (things are whatever we name them and nothing in themselves; interestingly, Occam founded nominalism because he was anti-papist, just like Newman was in his disparagement of the dogma of papal infallibility), empiricist (i.e., a faithful follower of Bacon), idealist (in that we don’t know beings; we only know our ideas of them), skeptic (this follows from all of the above; cf. x. §2. 410-11Gram. Assent: “I am suspicious then of scientific demonstrations in a question of concrete fact…”), and Protestant ( x. §1. 384-85Gram. Assent: “in religious inquiry each of us can only speak for himself”) views.

Also, Newman thinks dogmas are merely human creations, “notions.” This is flatly against Lamentabili Sane’s condemned proposition #22:

1. The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort.

Another interesting tidbit about Newman is his reaction to Æterni Patris:

months after the promulgation of he [Newman] asked Fr. Robert Whitty, a Jesuit in Rome and most sympathetic to him, as to what the whole encyclical was about. Fr. Whitty wrote back that the Encyclical came because “the Pope [Leo XIII] having himself been brought up in the Society’s teaching—knowing that some of our Professors in Italy and France were leaving St. Thomas in certain points of , and feeling that these were important points against the errors of the day—had expressed a wish that our teaching should return to the old lines.”

Newman’s false epistemology, certainly related for his lack proper training in St. Thomas’s doctrine*, directly relates to his negative views of the dogma of papal infallibility; cf. “Newman and the Pope.”

*(He never cites St. Thomas once in any of his works.)

 

[pgepps]

This is fascinating; as a 19th-C Brit Lit scholar and convert, and one who thinks a high view of Scripture over against Modernist/Liberal inroads remains essential to a proper reception of the Tradition, I am very interested in understanding Newman’s insights and his limitations better, as they impinge directly on my central interest in faith, scholarship, and teaching.

Would you mind picking just one objection to Newman’s approach and giving me a more specifically defined form of the criticism, so I can pick up the thread?

P.S. My understanding was that Newman opposed the movement to define papal infallibility dogmatically, but defended the conciliar declaration afterwards. Is it just to speak of Newman’s position, overall, as opposed to papal infallibility? [He was, after all, originally opposed to any papacy at all. ]

 

[Geremia]

Here’re some interesting resources that show Newman’s works are not Modernist:

Modernism Essay by Bishop O’Dwyer (1908)
Letter from Pope Pius X to Bishop O’Dwyer
approving his essay (1908)

 

[Geremia]

If you can read Spanish, this is a good description of Newman’s epistemology from a Gregorian University thesis.

 

[Iotaunum]

In his day Newman was considered a liberal. I remember reading about Cardinal Manning and he did not seem too comfortable with Newman’s theology. I have read a few of Newman’s books but I was surprised that so many traditional Catholics reccommended his works. His book on the “development of doctrine” was a turning point for me regarding my views on Newman and his theology. I think his works read alot like the documents of Vatican II - the liberals use certain ambiguity in his works as confirmation of their new theology, while traditionalists try their best to interpret his works with a sort of “hermeneutic of continuity”. I have not read his “Grammar of Assent”, but I may get around to reading it in the future. I think Cardinal Newman as a theologian is over rated somewhat, and I always felt that Cardinal Manning’s theological outlook was more in confromity with tradition. He was more of a Thomist. I have always felt wary of a theology which shies away from Thomism.

 

[JReducation]

A Jesuit who told me about Newman’s Grammar of Assent. He said it and Newman’s Development of Christian Doctrine are very useful for understanding our “present situation.” Since Newman certainly was an “Invisible [Vatican II] Council Father,” the Jesuit is right.

Larson’s “Does God Love Us: An Examination of the Epistemology of John Henry Newman” and Sartino’s “Another Look at John Henry Cardinal Newman” are very valuable, especially the section in the latter on The Grammar of Assent. These two articles make it clear than Newman’s thought was the progenitor of Modernism’s schizophrenia regarding faith and reason. In fact, Modernists Loisy and Tyrrell considered themselves “devout follower[s ] of Newman.”

“Real assent” with the “illative sense” versus “notional assent”—the former being more real and the latter including dogma—is a false dichotomy. Larson very convincingly shows that this false dichotomy is the origin of Modernism’s depreciation of dogma as lacking a vitality which each individual believer should supplement with his own personal faith experiences. This is uncannily reminiscent of Pascendi’s description of the Modernists’ “vital immanence.”

Read at least pages 12-25 of “Another Look at Newman” pertaining to Newman’s Grammar of Assent. “Another Look at Newman” shows how Grammar of Assent espouses nominalist (things are whatever we name them and nothing in themselves; interestingly, Occam founded nominalism because he was anti-papist, just like Newman was in his disparagement of the dogma of papal infallibility), empiricist (i.e., a faithful follower of Bacon), idealist (in that we don’t know beings; we only know our ideas of them), skeptic (this follows from all of the above; cf. Gram. Assent x. §2. 410-11: “I am suspicious then of scientific demonstrations in a question of concrete fact…”), and Protestant (Gram. Assent x. §1. 384-85: “in religious inquiry each of us can only speak for himself”) views.

Also, Newman thinks dogmas are merely human creations, “notions.” This is flatly against Lamentabili Sane’s condemned proposition #22:

Another interesting tidbit about Newman is his reaction to Æterni Patris:

Newman’s false epistemology, certainly related for his lack proper training in St. Thomas’s doctrine*, directly relates to his negative views of the dogma of papal infallibility; cf. “Newman and the Pope.”

There is a lot of misunderstanding of Newman’s work here. You may want to do further research, especially read what Pope Benedict has said about him. Right now, there is a papal intent to make him a Doctor of the Church after he’s canonized.

*(He never cites St. Thomas once in any of his works.)

Neither does Bonaventure, Lawrence of Brindisi, Francis de Sales, and Alphonse Ligouri, all Doctors of the Church, all systematic theologians.

Pope Benedict has openly said that he does not like Aquinas work. In the daily memo that we get from the Vatican, the new is out that he has released his new book, The Doctrine of the Church in St. Augustine . The Holy Father himself has never studied much of Aquinas’ work, because of his dislike of it. Yet, I wouldn’t call him a Modernist.

Being a Thomist is not a requirement for being a good Catholic theologian. This is a misconception which would make poor St.Thomas blush. St. Thomas was probably the brightest mind in the history of the Church, but certainly not the only bright light. We have to be careful to distinguish between his gifts and his contribution to Catholic theology on one hand, not to place him as the beginning and end of all theological research. There were many areas that he never touched, because they were not questions during his time, but they were later. There were also areas where he was mistaken and those pages have been left on shelves for academic studies, but not for teaching the faith.

We have to appreciate Thomas’ great contribution, without making him the center of all theological thought. In fact, his greatest contribution is actually his methodology. But one does not have to mention his name to use it. Alphonse Ligouri uses Aquinas’ methodology, but he never quotes Aquinas. You can tell that his method is Thomist.

Pope John Paul used Thomas Aquinas quite a bit. He was a Thomist, but he rarely if ever quoted him.

His methodology is his greatest gift to the Church. It’s genius.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[thewanderer]

In his day Newman was considered a liberal. I remember reading about Cardinal Manning and he did not seem too comfortable with Newman’s theology. I have read a few of Newman’s books but I was surprised that so many traditional Catholics reccommended his works. His book on the “development of doctrine” was a turning point for me regarding my views on Newman and his theology. I think his works read alot like the documents of Vatican II - the liberals use certain ambiguity in his works as confirmation of their new theology, while traditionalists try their best to interpret his works with a sort of “hermeneutic of continuity”. I have not read his “Grammar of Assent”, but I may get around to reading it in the future. I think Cardinal Newman as a theologian is over rated somewhat, and I always felt that Cardinal Manning’s theological outlook was more in confromity with tradition. He was more of a Thomist. I have always felt wary of a theology which shies away from Thomism.

I have read both Aquinas and Newman’s book on the development of doctrine, and to be honest, I don’t see them as contradictory at all. In fact, Newman’s thoughts help show the continuity of the Church and her doctrines despite what might otherwise appear to be doctrines imposed by men today that were not believed in the early Church.

 

[JReducation]

I have read both Aquinas and Newman’s book on the development of doctrine, and to be honest, I don’t see them as contradictory at all. In fact, Newman’s thoughts help show the continuity of the Church and her doctrines despite what might otherwise appear to be doctrines imposed by men today that were not believed in the early Church.

They really do not contradict. If you read Bonaventure’s Theology of History and Newman’s Development of Doctrine, you will see that they say the same thing using different methodologies from that of Aquinas. In other words, Newman is much more Franciscan than Dominican. That’s all. No big deal.

Franciscans and Dominicans have always gotten along and have always agreed that we approach God and theology from very different angles, but we arrive at the same place.

Bonaventure and Aquinas were best of friends and they disagreed on the method. Big deal, as long as they don’t disagree on dogma. Newman falls into the Franciscan camp better than he does into the Dominican camp, not a biggie.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Geremia]

There is a lot of misunderstanding of Newman’s work here. You may want to do further research, especially read what Pope Benedict has said about him.

Of course! I have a lot to learn about him.

Right now, there is a papal intent to make him a Doctor of the Church after he’s canonized.

If he’s canonized. There hasn’t been a legitimate miracle yet, has there?

Neither does Bonaventure, Lawrence of Brindisi, Francis de Sales, and Alphonse Ligouri, all Doctors of the Church, all systematic theologians.

Actually, I was wrong. Newman does quote St. Thomas twice in The Development of Christian Doctrine (here and here). And I’d be very surprised if St. Alphonsus di Liguori didn’t quote in his Theologia Moralis St. Thomas at least once. He makes many appeals to authorities in that work.

Pope Benedict has openly said that he does not like Aquinas work. In the daily memo that we get from the Vatican, the new is out that he has released his new book, The Doctrine of the Church in St. Augustine .

St. Augustine is very, very good, but St. Thomas, as Cajetan says, “in a certain way seems to have inherited the intellect of all” “the ancient doctors of the Church,” as Pope Leo XIII quoted him saying in his encyclical Æterni Patris.

The Holy Father himself has never studied much of Aquinas’ work, because of his dislike of it. Yet, I wouldn’t call him a Modernist.

Well, a dislike of St. Thomas is certainly common among Modernists, so the Holy Father would certainly be an exception. See, e.g., Gethsemane: Reflections on the Contemporary Theological Movement by Cardinal Siri, Franciscan Herald Press, 1981.

Being a Thomist is not a requirement for being a good Catholic theologian. This is a misconception which would make poor St.Thomas blush.

Really? (As a side note, I think St. Thomas is in heaven appalled by the Modernists’ New Theology, as Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange warned in “Where is the New Theology Leading Us?”)

St. Thomas was probably the brightest mind in the history of the Church, but certainly not the only bright light. We have to be careful to distinguish between his gifts and his contribution to Catholic theology on one hand, not to place him as the beginning and end of all theological research. There were many areas that he never touched, because they were not questions during his time, but they were later. There were also areas where he was mistaken and those pages have been left on shelves for academic studies, but not for teaching the faith.

We have to appreciate Thomas’ great contribution, without making him the center of all theological thought.

I think of his thought as a foundation, not an end-in-itself. That’s why it concerns me when one doesn’t cite him; it makes it seem as though one is inventing a whole other foundation separate from the one St. Thomas laid. But I agree that, e.g., if St. Francis de Sales directly quoted the Summa in his Treatise on the Love of God, it would possibly be out of line with the style of that work.

In fact, his greatest contribution is actually his methodology.

Yes, that’s what Pope John Paul II said in Fides et Ratio, although I don’t really know what he meant. Does methodology include principles or not? If not, then how is St. Thomas’s methodology any different from the logic he learned from Aristotle?

But one does not have to mention his name to use it. Alphonse Ligouri uses Aquinas’ methodology, but he never quotes Aquinas. You can tell that his method is Thomist.

Pope John Paul used Thomas Aquinas quite a bit. He was a Thomist, but he rarely if ever quoted him.

His methodology is his greatest gift to the Church. It’s genius.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Iotaunum]

I have read both Aquinas and Newman’s book on the development of doctrine, and to be honest, I don’t see them as contradictory at all. In fact, Newman’s thoughts help show the continuity of the Church and her doctrines despite what might otherwise appear to be doctrines imposed by men today that were not believed in the early Church.

Don’t get me wrong I think Card. Newman got a lot of things spot on in his book and I think he presents some very good arguments and defends Catholic doctrine on baptism and other issues very well. However, and once again without re-reading this book, there are some arguments and explanations he uses which open up a path for certain liberal ideas about the development of doctrine and dogma to creep into theology.

I will give him the benefit of the doubt as I may very well have misunderstood some of his arguments, but I still feel rather wary of his approach to the issue of development of doctrine - at least insofar as I feel it is rather ambiguous at times. Ambiguity is something which I think should be avoided at all costs when a clearer exposition of an idea could be put foward.

I understand you opinion about Newmans views on the development of doctrine not being contradictory to the theology of St Thomas, but when I said; “I have always felt wary of a theology which shies away from Thomism”, I was referring to Newmans overal approach to theology generally, which I think clearly stands apart from the scholastic method and St Thomas’ in particular. In fact I think Card. Newman was opposed to Thomism, or at least the authority it was given at Rome under Pope Gregory XVI and Pius IX etc.

In another post Br. JR mentioned that: “Aphonse Ligouri uses Aquinas’ methodology, but he never quotes Aquinas. You can tell that his method is Thomist.” - well I agree. I don’t know about not mentioning him (I think he mentioned his scholastic method in his rules and works on moral theology - I may be wrong) but I would consider St Alphonsus a Thomist writer and he certainly held thomistic views on many issues, however I just don’t see this in what I have read of Newmans writings.

Newman’s aparent disdain for the Thomistic method I think only fuels the liberals who use his works as a basis for their ideas on the development of doctrine. I think we all know that there are very few modernists or liberals who advocate a return to St Thomas’ scholastic method.

 

[JReducation]

Of course! I have a lot to learn about him.If he’s canonized. There hasn’t been a legitimate miracle yet, has there?Actually, I was wrong. Newman does quote St. Thomas twice in The Development of Christian Doctrine (here and here). And I’d be very surprised if St. Alphonsus di Liguori didn’t quote in his Theologia Moralis St. Thomas at least once. He makes many appeals to authorities in that work.St. Augustine is very, very good, but St. Thomas, as Cajetan says, “in a certain way seems to have inherited the intellect of all” “the ancient doctors of the Church,” as Pope Leo XIII quoted him saying in his encyclical Æterni Patris.Well, a dislike of St. Thomas is certainly common among Modernists, so the Holy Father would certainly be an exception. See, e.g., Gethsemane: Reflections on the Contemporary Theological Movement by Cardinal Siri, Franciscan Herald Press, 1981.Really? (As a side note, I think St. Thomas is in heaven appalled by the Modernists’ New Theology, as Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange warned in “Where is the New Theology Leading Us?”)I think of his thought as a foundation, not an end-in-itself. That’s why it concerns me when one doesn’t cite him; it makes it seem as though one is inventing a whole other foundation separate from the one St. Thomas laid. But I agree that, e.g., if St. Francis de Sales directly quoted the Summa in his Treatise on the Love of God, it would possibly be out of line with the style of that work.Yes, that’s what Pope John Paul II said in Fides et Ratio, although I don’t really know what he meant. Does methodology include principles or not? If not, then how is St. Thomas’s methodology any different from the logic he learned from Aristotle?

If you were a Franciscan, you would hear Thomas quoted in this course and that course, but you would not have a course on the Summa. You would have many courses from the works of the Franciscan doctors, beginning with Bonaventure. We’re certainly not missing anything in our theology. We have the most doctors in the Church and none of them were Thomists.

The Carmelite Doctors are not Thomists either.

There is a misconception that one has to be Thomist to be a Catholic theologian.

Pope John Paul praises his methodology, but not his concepts. Pope Benedict critiques his methodology, but once in a while will quote one of his concepts. Neither man is a Modernist.

He was a genius and has to be appreciated for that. But more than his genius, Thomas Aquinas’ greatest contribution to Catholicism was that he was one of the most faithful sons of our Holy Father Dominic. He was a model Dominican Friar. People pay more attention to his work when they should pay more attention to his holiness. There are three Dominicans whose lives outshine their work: our Holy Father Dominic, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Catherine of Siena.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, OSF

 

[Geremia]

In another post Br. JR mentioned that: “Aphonse Ligouri uses Aquinas’ methodology, but he never quotes Aquinas. You can tell that his method is Thomist.” - well I agree. I don’t know about not mentioning him (I think he mentioned his scholastic method in his rules and works on moral theology - I may be wrong)

He certainly cites St. Thomas in his Theologia Moralis as an authority (I checked the online, multi-volume Google Books version.), but I’m not sure if he explicitly quotes him.

but I would consider St Alphonsus a Thomist writer and he certainly held thomistic views on many issues, however I just don’t see this in what I have read of Newmans writings.

Newman’s aparent disdain for the Thomistic method I think only fuels the liberals who use his works as a basis for their ideas on the development of doctrine. I think we all know that there are very few modernists or liberals who advocate a return to St Thomas’ scholastic method.

Who are the Modernists who advocate a return to St. Thomas‽

 

[Iotaunum]

He certainly cites St. Thomas in his Theologia Moralis as an authority (I checked the online, multi-volume Google Books version.), but I’m not sure if he explicitly quotes him.Who are the Modernists who advocate a return to St. Thomas‽

I was making the point that there are no Modernists who do so. I should have been clearer. Although I certainly have heard people teaching thomistic theology and philosophy who are liberal and hold ideas at least proxima modernism.

 

[JReducation]

Why would Newman, Bonaventure, Lawrence of Brindisi, Anthony of Padua, Teresa Avila, John of the Cross, or Benedict XVI have to use Thomas, if they can use another source?

It does not make them more or less orthodox or Catholic.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Exsilivm]

Being a Thomist is not a requirement for being a good Catholic theologian.

Neither, some would argue, is being an Augustinian.

 

[JReducation]

Neither, some would argue, is being an Augustinian.

They would be correct.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, OSF

 

[Exsilivm]

They would be correct.

The entire question of modernism stands in a very different light, if Augustinian theology suffers basic flaws.

An argument could be made that Rome has been far more attached to Augustine qualitatively than it ever has been to St.Thomas Aquinas, all the rhetoric notwithstanding.

 

[JReducation]

The entire question of modernism stands in a very different light, if Augustinian theology suffers basic flaws.

An argument could be made that Rome has been far more attached to Augustine qualitatively than it ever has been to St.Thomas Aquinas, all the rhetoric notwithstanding.

I guess what I’m not understanding is where is the flaw in Newman? Could it be that people don’t understand him well enough? He’s actually very Bonaventurian. Bonaventure was not a Modernist.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Exsilivm]

I guess what I’m not understanding is where is the flaw in Newman? Could it be that people don’t understand him well enough? He’s actually very Bonaventurian. Bonaventure was not a Modernist.

I was unclear. I am not suggesting that there is any flaw in Newman.

It does seem to me that the Latin Church, and by practical extension, the Catholic Church, has demonstrated strong loyalty to St. Augustine’s articulation of grace and sin. Again, from a practical standpoint, this has had a profound effect on how people worship, how they understand salvation.

On the other hand, while St. Thomas’s method has been applauded loudly and often, his actual conclusions have not always been maintained officially with the kind of steadfastness that St. Augustine’s thinking has. I have in mind original sin on the one hand and St. Thomas’s conclusions regarding the Immaculate Conception on the other.

While I have not worked it all out, a suspicion keeps tickling me that all this debate about modernism sources to misunderstandings regarding grace.

 

[JReducation]

I was unclear. I am not suggesting that there is any flaw in Newman.

It does seem to me that the Latin Church, and by practical extension, the Catholic Church, has demonstrated strong loyalty to St. Augustine’s articulation of grace and sin. Again, from a practical standpoint, this has had a profound effect on how people worship, how they understand salvation.

On the other hand, while St. Thomas’s method has been applauded loudly and often, his actual conclusions have not always been maintained officially with the kind of steadfastness that St. Augustine’s thinking has. I have in mind original sin on the one hand and St. Thomas’s conclusions regarding the Immaculate Conception on the other.

While I have not worked it all out, a suspicion keeps tickling me that all this debate about modernism sources to misunderstandings regarding grace.

The Modernist movement definitely lacks an understanding of grace, because it over estimates man.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF