Protestant view of Cardinal Newman's thoughts

[Rsambo00]

I am curious as to what Protestants think when they read the words of Cardinal John Henry Newman as it pertains to the interpretation of scripture and do they think he adequately makes a case for the need of an infallible interpreter of scripture rather than the idea of scripture interpreting scripture.

"Surely then, if the revelations and lessons in Scripture are addressed to us personally and practically, the presence among us of a formal judge and standing expositor of its words is imperative. It is antecedently unreasonable to suppose that a book so complex, so unsystematic, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times, and places, should be given us from above without the safeguard of some authority; as if it could possibly from the nature of the case, interpret itself. Its inspiration does but guarantee its truth, not its interpretation.

How are private readers satisfactorily to distinguish what is didactic and what is historical, what is fact and what is vision, what is allegorical and what is literal, what is [idiomatic] and what is grammatical, what is enunciated formally and what occurs, what is only of temporary and what is of lasting obligations. Such is our natural anticipation, and it is only too exactly justified in the events of the last three centuries, in the many countries where private judgment on the text of Scripture has prevailed. The gift of inspiration requires as its complement the gift of infallibility."—Cardinal Newman

 

[Ruthie]

How are private readers satisfactorily to distinguish what is didactic and what is historical, what is fact and what is vision, what is allegorical and what is literal, what is [idiomatic] and what is grammatical, what is enunciated formally and what occurs, what is only of temporary and what is of lasting obligations.

In part, it was realizing this that led me away from being a “non-denominational” to the Church.

Ruthie

 

[csekar]

This book is really an autobiography. The first volume contains a biography of himself, written by Cardinal Newman in the third person and committed by him to the care of his niece, Miss Anne Mozley, used laptops texas mortgage lending cash out of refinancing who is the editor of this work. Newman had long been of the opinion that in whatever was published of him after his death the Protestant part must be kept separate from the Catholic part.

 

[JonNC]

I am curious as to what Protestants think when they read the words of Cardinal John Henry Newman as it pertains to the interpretation of scripture and do they think he adequately makes a case for the need of an infallible interpreter of scripture rather than the idea of scripture interpreting scripture.

"Surely then, if the revelations and lessons in Scripture are addressed to us personally and practically, the presence among us of a formal judge and standing expositor of its words is imperative. It is antecedently unreasonable to suppose that a book so complex, so unsystematic, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times, and places, should be given us from above without the safeguard of some authority; as if it could possibly from the nature of the case, interpret itself. Its inspiration does but guarantee its truth, not its interpretation.

How are private readers satisfactorily to distinguish what is didactic and what is historical, what is fact and what is vision, what is allegorical and what is literal, what is [idiomatic] and what is grammatical, what is enunciated formally and what occurs, what is only of temporary and what is of lasting obligations. Such is our natural anticipation, and it is only too exactly justified in the events of the last three centuries, in the many countries where private judgment on the text of Scripture has prevailed. The gift of inspiration requires as its complement the gift of infallibility."—Cardinal Newman

At the time of the early councils, who had that gift of infallibility?

Jon

 

[Contarini]

I am curious as to what Protestants think when they read the words of Cardinal John Henry Newman as it pertains to the interpretation of scripture and do they think he adequately makes a case for the need of an infallible interpreter of scripture rather than the idea of scripture interpreting scripture.

It’s a false dichotomy. Of course we need the Church to interpret Scripture–or rather we interpret Scripture as Church and not as individuals. But we don’t need “infallibility” for ourselves or our leaders–a concept that creates a lot more problems than it solves. Read any serious Catholic theological discussion of what Vatican I’s declaration of papal infallibility actually meant and you’ll see what I mean.

Note: I am talking about “infallibility” of a living interpretive authority. Infallibility (or, as some Catholics prefer to call it, “inerrancy”–though the distinction is made differently in Protestantism and Protestants find this usage confusing) of Scripture or of past decrees of Councils or other Church authorities is indeed useful. It’s a way of saying: “this has been settled, and whatever further answers we come up with must agree with this.” But that’s radically different from the argument for infallibility made by modern Roman Catholics (I am using the word “Roman” deliberately in this context and will not retract it, so don’t bother trying to make me).

Edwin

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

At the time of the early councils, who had that gift of infallibility?

Jon

The Bishops, in communion with the successor to St. Peter - that is, the Church’s Magisterium - just as today.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[JonNC]

The Bishops, in communion with the successor to St. Peter - that is, the Church’s Magisterium - just as today.

Blessings,

Gerry

So then, not the pope individually.

Jon

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

So then, not the pope individually.

Jon

Didn’t either say or imply that.

The charism of infallibility protects the Holy Father when he teaches the whole Church on matters of faith and morals. But the Bishops who exercise the Magisterium of the Church are also protected in their union with him, though not as a matter of individual prerogative.

This teaching is easily (and not infrequently) misunderstood. I don’t want to add to that through brevity which omits context. There is a very good synopsis of it found here. It discusses the exercise of the charism by the Holy Father and the Bishops in union with him.

Blessings

Gerry

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

I am curious as to what Protestants think when they read the words of Cardinal John Henry Newman as it pertains to the interpretation of scripture and do they think he adequately makes a case for the need of an infallible interpreter of scripture rather than the idea of scripture interpreting scripture.

"Surely then, if the revelations and lessons in Scripture are addressed to us personally and practically, the presence among us of a formal judge and standing expositor of its words is imperative. It is antecedently unreasonable to suppose that a book so complex, so unsystematic, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times, and places, should be given us from above without the safeguard of some authority; as if it could possibly from the nature of the case, interpret itself. Its inspiration does but guarantee its truth, not its interpretation.

How are private readers satisfactorily to distinguish what is didactic and what is historical, what is fact and what is vision, what is allegorical and what is literal, what is [idiomatic] and what is grammatical, what is enunciated formally and what occurs, what is only of temporary and what is of lasting obligations. Such is our natural anticipation, and it is only too exactly justified in the events of the last three centuries, in the many countries where private judgment on the text of Scripture has prevailed. The gift of inspiration requires as its complement the gift of infallibility."—Cardinal Newman

I wonder why, if Christ is head of the Church, and He is with us unto the end of the age, there is an apparent presumption on the side of fallibility? Under the circumstances, once one identifies the true visible church, I would expect resolutions surrounding doctrinal controversies to be guided by the Holy Ghost and therefore true. Infallibility is the default position in that instance.

On the other hand, if one views the visible churches as equally valid attempts of sincere believers to express different forms of faith, the default position would be against infallibility. Infallibility seems to me to follow from one true visible, while fallibility follows from denial of one true visible church.

Rory

 

[JonNC]

Didn’t either say or imply that.

The charism of infallibility protects the Holy Father when he teaches the whole Church on matters of faith and morals. But the Bishops who exercise the Magisterium of the Church are also protected in their union with him, though not as a matter of individual prerogative.

This teaching is easily (and not infrequently) misunderstood. I don’t want to add to that through brevity which omits context. There is a very good synopsis of it found here. It discusses the exercise of the charism by the Holy Father and the Bishops in union with him.

Blessings

Gerry

My point, Gerry, is the teaching is not that of the early Church. Or at least, it is a point of division between Rome on the one hand, and the Orthodox and Reformation churches on the other.

Jon

 

[PhiJ]

He makes a valid point about scripture sometimes being hard to interpret. Distinguishing between what is (option A) and what is (option B) can often be difficult (where options A and B are respectively the first and second element of a pair which he described)

But no, I don’t think he makes a case for his point. He shows that we need to be careful with biblical interpretation, and makes me feel like it would be nice if there was an easy way of doing it. He makes me feel like ‘looking at what the catholic church says’ is that easy way, although I know that is not what he is saying at all.

I suppose that because I don’t hold the catholic church to be the church, and although I don’t know quite what you mean by that, I’m sure I disagree with you at the moment. As I see the catholic church to hold no special status, but rather be a group of churches which is trying to obey the Lord, and build the church as he wills, I see no reason at all to agree with Cardinal Newman. He makes his point well, but doesn’t seem to give much reason for it (at least given my assumptions).

And don’t worry, I didn’t join this forum for no reason - I’d quite like to understand the catholic points of view on important issues (such as confirming that you think you are the church and looking at what you mean by that), and as best I can, determine whether they are correct or not.

 

[Primox]

Love the quote

I suppose that because I don’t hold the catholic church to be the church,… As I see the catholic church to hold no special status, but rather be a group of churches which is trying to obey the Lord, and build the church as he wills,

This was my issue when I first started looking at Catholicism. I started with the assumption “the Catholic Church is a denomination among denominations - what gives them the right?” But this is an assumption, and we can’t build on assumptions. True reason requires induction / deduction.

1. We have a book
2. It was sealed and handed to us by Catholics.

I dare’nt say “Thanks for the book, I’ll interpret it from here.” Neither would I preface that remark with “Because God is good enough to keep his word, but not his Church.” Infants can’t interpret the bible, nor can infants in the faith. The appeal to reason doesn’t get us very far either. If reason would guide any sober mind, surely Christianity wouldn’t be schizmed into hundreds of denominations. You can literally custom-tailor Christianity until it’s what you want it to be. But then we have to imagine that there is no objective truth - that truth is merely the concoction of our whims and desires. When then, to the nay-sayers, is the point at which a person is capable of interpreting on their own? Look at what an image that paints: “I’m qualified to interpret the bible because I took x years of bible school, training under an instructor who had taken x years of bible school, who learned from an instructor who had taken x years of bible school…” but who of any of these scholars can say they speak from a position of authority? And why?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It’s a false dichotomy. Of course we need the Church to interpret Scripture–or rather we interpret Scripture as Church and not as individuals. But we don’t need “infallibility” for ourselves or our leaders–a concept that creates a lot more problems than it solves. Read any serious Catholic theological discussion of what Vatican I’s declaration of papal infallibility actually meant and you’ll see what I mean.

Note: I am talking about “infallibility” of a living interpretive authority. Infallibility (or, as some Catholics prefer to call it, “inerrancy”–though the distinction is made differently in Protestantism and Protestants find this usage confusing) of Scripture or of past decrees of Councils or other Church authorities is indeed useful. It’s a way of saying: “this has been settled, and whatever further answers we come up with must agree with this.” But that’s radically different from the argument for infallibility made by modern Roman Catholics (I am using the word “Roman” deliberately in this context and will not retract it, so don’t bother trying to make me).

Edwin

The Church & Bible may be authoritative - it does not follow that either is** inerrant** or infallible. This is not an arcane distinction.​

More bothersome is the OP’s implication that infallibility can be - or ought to be - a substitute for the hard graft of study. If one need not be infallible to find out one’s date of birth or to know that Glasgow is not the capital of Alabama, it is not clear one needs infallibility for the study of Hebrew grammar. To compare & contrast Aquinas & Calvin, no Pope is needed; that is not what Popes are for; it’s what university faculties help one do.

What the Church does not need is hyper-inflated infallibility or hyper-inflation of the Papacy. The trouble with over-inflating things, is that they go “pop !” - & cease to be any use at all.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

My point, Gerry, is the teaching is not that of the early Church. Or at least, it is a point of division between Rome on the one hand, and the Orthodox and Reformation churches on the other.

Jon

Neither, explicitly, was the Trinity a defined doctrine in the “early Church.” But it was there, and implicit, and later made explicit when it became necessary to do so.

The position of the Church is this: The Deposit of the Faith is given and fixed. It has never been added to, and cannot be pruned. When Vatican I enunciated this particular doctrine explicitly, it enunciated that which had always been a part of the Deposit of the Faith.

Now of course there are those who might try to argue that this doctrine - or others, for that matter - are later inventions or concoctions. If they are Catholics, they are flirting with excommunication. And divisions caused by not accepting revealed doctrine started in Holy Scripture. What do you mean, eat my flesh and drink my blood? Thats not on. I’m outa here. (Forgive the paraphrase of John 6, but brevity dictates.)

What baffles me are those who somehow think the Church can, or will, somehow ever state that there was a time in the Church when the charism did not apply. She will not, because she cannot, ever make such a statement, or act on the assumption that it could possibly be true.

Interestingly, many false assertions over the years have been made about Cardinal Newman and the explicit pronouncement of this doctrine. It has been claimed he opposed the doctrine. He did not. He put the position that, at that particular time, its explicit pronouncement was inopportune. When that turned out to not be the case, he assented fully to the pronouncement, never having opposed it.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Primox]

The Church & Bible may be authoritative - it does not follow that either is** inerrant** or infallible. This is not an arcane distinction.​

More bothersome is the OP’s implication that infallibility can be - or ought to be - a substitute for the hard graft of study. If one need not be infallible to find out one’s date of birth or to know that Glasgow is not the capital of Alabama, it is not clear one needs infallibility for the study of Hebrew grammar. To compare & contrast Aquinas & Calvin, no Pope is needed; that is not what Popes are for; it’s what university faculties help one do.

What the Church does not need is hyper-inflated infallibility or hyper-inflation of the Papacy. The trouble with over-inflating things, is that they go “pop !” - & cease to be any use at all.

In the academic world, people and ideas are more or less elected to a position of authority (such as with a member of a university faculty). Ideas and important others are added to and removed from the authority-roster, contingent on the spirit of the times. Can we trust that people will elect the right people to interpret ideas based on their brand of reason? I suspect not. Can we trust that God will make a just election, and maintain his Church thus? I suspect so.

Also, the OP hasn’t implied that infallibility suplants study in any way. In fact, it’s a crucial component of. Where are you getting this idea?

 

[PhiJ]

@Primox #11:

I don’t hold the catholic church to be the church, at the moment, but I am up for investigating whether it is the church or not. I may not have expressed myself clearly, but I’m not assuming that the catholic church is a denomination among denominations. I think that is true at the moment, but I’m questioning that.

What you said deserves serious consideration if the catholic church is the church. There are a couple of points to make about it.

“It was sealed and handed to us by Catholics.” Although the catholics back then may have had the same name as the catholics now, that doesn’t mean we should identify them. I can’t just accept without question the idea that the original catholics, thousands of years ago, had the same ideas as modern catholics now. It is quite plausible that people split from the catholic church because it was deviating from the biblical model, rather than the other way around. It’s also possible that you do have the correct views. This is why I need to determine whether catholicism is correct…

No I dare’nt say “Thanks for the book, I’ll interpret it from here.” Neither would I preface that remark with “Because God is good enough to keep his word, but not his Church.” If the catholic church is the church then you have a good point. Otherwise I’m not sure what I’d mean by God ‘keeping his church’.

Oh! What? You said this: “But this is an assumption, and we can’t build on assumptions. True reason requires induction / deduction.” and then this: “If reason would guide any sober mind, surely Christianity wouldn’t be schizmed into hundreds of denominations.” I’m not understanding you or you are contradicting yourself.

Your point about reason shows that we need to be very careful with biblical interpretation - the disagreement shows that it is easy to misinterpret the bible. It indicates that I need to be careful not to stick with my predudices, to try to learn not to read the bible with the eyes of my culture, nor to overcompensate for this weekness etc. etc. etc. Not everyone is right, and determining the truth is difficult, but has to be attempted. Nobody is qualified to interpret the bible on their own, as others are more likely to spot where you are wrong than you are. Rather you must study with others - but ultimately if you disagree, you disagree. People who have spent more time studying are often more knowledgable, but you can’t just trust people because they have been studying for a long time. Of course, nobody has the time to learn everything, so you must be careful, and remember that where you are trusting people, they could be wrong.

 

[Primox]

@PhiJ #15

“I can’t just accept without question the idea that the original catholics, thousands of years ago, had the same ideas as modern catholics now.”

This is something that I struggled quite a bit with also, but looking into the historical literature, I found striking symmetry between past and present Catholicism. That’s for another thread though.

"Otherwise I’m not sure what I’d mean by God ‘keeping his church’.

Christ intended fully to establish a Church for, by, and from the point of his death and ressurection. I have bigger theological issues to digest in my beliefs about God if He institutes a Church which, so soon after its inauguration, becomes hopelessly apostate. If the Catholic Church achived such enormous fame and power through means other than God, I can’t be certain that the true Church should ever be apparent.

“Oh! What? You said this: “But this is an assumption, and we can’t build on assumptions. True reason requires induction / deduction.” and then this: “If reason would guide any sober mind, surely Christianity wouldn’t be schizmed into hundreds of denominations.” I’m not understanding you or you are contradicting yourself.”

I might have been clearer. I’m not making an argument against reason (true reason does require induction and deduction); my point is that reason is a necessary but insufficient antecedent to knowledge about our Heavenly Father. We must take into consideration the amount we know about Christianity through what has been passed down. Give a Bible to the most intelligent / analytical people in the world, who’ve never heard of Christianity, and reason alone could not produce what we know as Christianity today (from the stance of any denomination). If you revere the intents and purposes of tradition, this will not be a hard thing to accept; if you subscribe to sola scriptura (and from that starting point), this will be difficult to accept.
**
Careful interpretation, abstaining from prejudices, looking not through the lens of culture but through the lens of objectivity: these are all good but they are also only hopeful intentions. I would be lucky to know what makes good interpretation, what my prejudices are, how my culture has curbed my understanding, let alone know how to keep those things from impeding my understanding. Again, this is not an attack on reason; rather, the appeal to reason alone cannot adequately refute a central authority.

These, of course, are just my thoughts on the matter. There’s lots of good arguments on this site for an infallible interpreter.**