John Henry Newman

Theology and Reform

Michael E. Allsopp, Ronald R. Burke

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351630474
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

This collection of papers, first published in 1992, grew out of a concern for the perduring nature of the thought of John Henry Cardinal Newman. Although Cardinal Newman died over one hundred years ago, his influence on today's thinking is still strong. Newman put forward an ideal of society and life which has a recognizable relation to the lasting possibilities open to humankind. The editors and contributors of this volume have been brought together by a common interest in a man for whom the continual search for truth is paramount.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE IN JOHN CARDINAL NEWMAN AND ALFRED LOISY

Francesco Turvasi

Cardinal Newman was accused of being a modernist by modernists and scholastics alike because of his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.¹ It is not my intention to defend Newman from the accusation of Modernism. My purpose is simply to make a comparison between the theory of the development of Christian doctrine as held by Newman and as held by Loisy.

Since development involves history and theology, it is appropriate, before making a comparison between Loisy’s and Newman’s conception of development, to define the method which is proper to historical research and to theology as it is conceived by Loisy and Newman. We will then analyze the terms of the development (terminus a quo, terminus ad quern, and the cause of the development), as they are understood by Loisy and Newman, and, on the basis of this parallel, we will define the meaning of the concept of development used by Loisy and by Newman. After this historical enquiry, we will consider the implications of the conceptions of development of these two scholars.

The works taken into consideration are mainly Loisy’s L’Evangile et I’Eglise (1902) and Autour d’un petit livre (1903),² and Newman’s An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845) and An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent (1870). Loisy’s L’Evangile et I’Eglise has its counterpart in Newman’s Development of Christian Doctrine, and his Autour d’un petit livre has its counterpart in Newman’s Grammar of Assent.

1

METHODOLOGY

One aspect of Newman’s genius was his realization of the importance of the method to be used in the search for truth and certainty. He dealt with this point in every one of his works, especially in the Oxford University Sermons (the subject matter of which is the relationship between faith and reason), in The Idea of a University, and in the Grammar of Assent. Concerning the theological method, we must also add his sermon, “Contracted Views in Religion.”³

In the Grammar of Assent the whole argument of methodology ultimately rests on the assumption that, in order to know by what kinds of mental operations we may trustfully advance to certainty, we have to investigate how the mind actually proceeds to conclusions which generate certainty in it, rather than to determine a priori how the mind has to proceed. After comparing the structure of the universe which “speaks to us of Him who made it” with the laws of the mind which are “the expression of His will,” Newman adds that we should be bound by the laws of the mind, “to take them as they are, and use them as we find them,” despite the difficulties which occur “in the interaction of our faculties.” The following conclusion shows the intellectual and religious integrity of Newman on the subject:

It is He who teaches us all knowledge; and the way by which we acquire it is His way. He varies that way according to the subject-matter; but whether He has set before us in our particular pursuit the way of observation or of experiment, of speculation or of research, of demonstration or of probability, whether we are inquiring into the system of the universe, or into the elements of matter and of life, or into the history of human society and past times, if we take the way proper to our subject-matter, we have His blessing upon us, and shall find, besides abundant matter for mere opinion, the material in due measure of proof and assent.”⁴

It follows that, by not accepting the method which is proper to the subject matter of every science (and established by the Creator), we show a lack of faith.

1. THE HISTORICAL METHOD

We find in Newman’s writings some hints which show that Newman could agree in principle with Loisy’s conception of the historical method.

In his book Autour d’un petit livre (1903), Loisy defines the subject matter and method of historical inquiry as follows: “History apprehends only phenomena with their succession and their concatenation: it perceives the manifestation of ideas and their evolution; it does not attain the essence of things. If it concerns religious facts, it sees them in the limitation of their tangible form, not in their profound cause.”⁵ According to this definition, the historical method excludes both the knowledge of God and the divinity of Jesus Christ. He justifies this principle by appealing to the method of empirical science.

God does not present himself at the end of the astronomer’s telescope. . . . He is no more a personage of history than an element of the physical world. The divinity of Christ, though Jesus may have taught it, would not be a fact of evangelical history, but a religious and moral datum. This belief would pertain to the teaching of Jesus, and history would have to recognize it if the fourth Gospel were a direct echo of the Savior’s preaching and if the word of the Synoptics on the Father who knows the Son and the Son who alone knows the Father were not a product of tradition.⁶

Concerning empirical science Newman uses a sentence which is literally identical to that which we find in Loisy: “The inquiry into physical [causes], passes over for the moment the existence of God. In other words, physical science is in a certain sense atheistic, for the very reason it is not theology.”⁷ Newman also states clearly that the knowledge of God is not the subject matter of a purely historical enquiry,⁸ but of natural theology, either through the imperative of conscience or through the ontological argument.⁹ Concerning the divinity of Jesus Christ Newman could not be more explicit in denying that it is the subject matter of the historical method: “Knowledge of these revealed truths is gained not by any research into [historical] facts.”¹⁰ If, in addition, we bear in mind the distinction between the different branches of knowledge, which Newman establishes in the Idea of a University, we can conclude that he could also agree with Loisy in affirming the autonomy of historical method.¹¹ In a letter to Richard H. Hurron, Newman wrote: “Why do you take for granted that I admit no historical errors in the Bible?¹² This is a question of fact—fact is fact, and can be proved.” Then, after affirming his reverence for the sacred writer, he states plainly: “Certainly I will not shut my eyes to historical proof, nor am I inconsistent, as a Catholic, in saying so.”¹³ In another letter, addressed to Dr. Liddon, he wrote: “It is clear we shall have to discuss the question whether certain passages of the Old Testament are or are not mythical. It is one of the gravest of questions, and we cannot spend too much time in preparing for it.”¹⁴

In Newman’s time the historical method and biblical criticism were only beginning, but Newman perceived their importance and realized the impact they would have on traditional ideas about Sacred Scripture. We find in his writing several statements concerning biblical criticism of the Old and New Testament which show a singular affinity with Loisy’s conclusion of historical method.¹⁵ One statement concerning the New Testament is particularly interesting because it is an important factor in establishing the difference between Newman’s and Loisy’s conception of development. Newman deals, in some degree, with the problem which later on was qualified as the distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. He analyzed the meaning of Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi.

“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt. 16:16). St. Peter acknowledged Him as the Christ, the Son of God. So did the centurion who was present at his crucifixion. Did that centurion, when he said, “Truly, this was the Son of God,” understand his own words? Surely not. Nor did St. Peter, though he spoke, not through flesh and blood, but by the revelation of the Father. Had he understood, could he so soon after, when our Lord spoke of His passion, which lay before Him, have presumed to “take Him, and begin to rebuke Him?” Certainly he did not understand that our Lord, as being the Son of God, was not the creature of God, but the Eternal Word, the only-begotten Son of the Father, one with Him in substance, distinct in Person. . . . Apparently, it was not till after His resurrection, and especially after His ascension, when the Holy Ghost descended, that the Apostles understood who had been with them. When all was over they knew it, not at the time.¹⁶

We must give credit to Loisy for having realized the distinction between the history and the faith of Christianity, and that the Gospels do not relate to us what Jesus Christ said verbatim and that they were informed by the faith of the first Christians. Newman, in the just quoted page concerning Peter’s confession, shows that he, too, was, to some extent, aware of the distinction between history and faith. However, we should underscore an important difference between Loisy and Newman concerning the historical method. In his dispute with ecclesiastical authority, Loisy insistently protested that his two Books, L’Evangile et I’Eglise and Autour d’un petit livre, were historical in their subject matter and method. But in reality the books of Loisy dealt not only with history, but also with philosophy of religion. Loisy in Choses passées acknowledged that his book I’Evangile et I’Eglise contained an “apologetic part,” and a “philosophical and historical element.”¹⁷ In Quelques Lettres he admits that in I’Evangile et I’Eglise and in Autour d’un petit livre “history occupied a very large place” but that they contained also a “theory of Christian development,” i.e., philosophy or theology.¹⁸ Baron von Hugel, a good friend of Loisy, called this point to Blondel’s attention when he wrote: “What, for example, are the renowned pages 142-144 of M. Loisy’s I’Evangile et I’Eglise if not philosophy?”¹⁹

This lack of distinction between the historical...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Newman, The Champion of Truth
• Newman, Lindbeck and Models of Doctrine
• Atheism or Catholicism: Stark Disjunction From Complex Newman
• George Tyrrell: Devout Disciple of Newman
• Growth the Only Evidence of Life: Development of Doctrine and The Idea of a University
• The Sensus Fidelium and Catholicity: Newman’s Legacy in the Age of Inculturation
• Newman’s Conscience: A Teleological Argument
• The Development of Doctrine in John Cardinal Newman and Alfred Loisy
• Illative Sense and Tacit Knowledge: A Comparison of the Epistemologies of John Henry Newman and Michael Polanyi
• Newman on the Criticizability of Catholic Faith
• Imaginative Discernment: Newman’s Safeguard of Faith and Morals
• Contributors
• Index