Celebrating Newman’s memory
Kathy kindly sent me the site at which one can find the prayers and the reading for the Divine Office for the memorial of Blessed John Henry Newman. The prayer alludes to Newman’s best-known (but not best) hymn, “Lead, Kindly Light,” and to the words he wished inscribed on his tombstone: “Ex umbris et imaginibus in veritatem.” The reading is from the final chapter of Newman’s intellectual and spiritual autobiography, the Apologia pro vita sua.
O God, who bestowed on the Priest Blessed John Henry Newman
the grace to follow your kindly light and find peace in your Church;
graciously grant that, through his intercession and example,
we may be led out of shadows and images
into the fulness of your truth.
Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, for ever and ever.
From the writings of Blessed John Henry Newman, Priest
From the time that I became a Catholic, of course I have no further history of my religious opinions to narrate. In saying this, I do not mean to say that my mind has been idle, or that I have given up thinking on theological subjects; but that I have had no variations to record, and have had no anxiety of heart whatever. I have been in perfect peace and contentment; I never have had one doubt. I was not conscious to myself, on my conversion, of any change, intellectual or moral, wrought in my mind. I was not conscious of firmer faith in the fundamental truths of Revelation, or of more self-command; I had not more fervour; but it was like coming into port after a rough sea; and my happiness on that score remains to this day without interruption.
Nor had I any trouble about receiving those additional articles, which are not found in the Anglican Creed. Some of them I believed already, but not any one of them was a trial to me. I made a profession of them upon my reception with the greatest ease, and I have the same ease in believing them now. I am far of course from denying that every article of the Christian Creed, whether as held by Catholics or by Protestants, is beset with intellectual difficulties; and it is simple fact, that, for myself, I cannot answer those difficulties. Many persons are very sensitive of the difficulties of Religion; I am as sensitive of them as any one; but I have never been able to see a connexion between apprehending those difficulties, however keenly, and multiplying them to any extent, and on the other hand doubting the doctrines to which they are attached. Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, as I understand the subject; difficulty and doubt are incommensurate. There of course may be difficulties in the evidence; but I am speaking of difficulties intrinsic to the doctrines themselves, or to their relations with each other. A man may be annoyed that he cannot work out a mathematical problem, of which the answer is or is not given to him, without doubting that it admits of an answer, or that a certain particular answer is the true one. Of all points of faith, the being of a God is, to my own apprehension, encompassed with most difficulty, and yet borne in upon our minds with most power.
People say that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is difficult to believe; I did not believe the doctrine till I was a Catholic. I had no difficulty in believing it, as soon as I believed that the Catholic Roman Church was the oracle of God, and that she had declared this doctrine to be part of the original revelation. It is difficult, impossible, to imagine, I grant;—but how is it difficult to believe? …
I believe the whole revealed dogma as taught by the Apostles, as committed by the Apostles to the Church, and as declared by the Church to me. I receive it, as it is infallibly interpreted by the authority to whom it is thus committed, and (implicitly) as it shall be, in like manner, further interpreted by that same authority till the end of time. I submit, moreover, to the universally received traditions of the Church, in which lies the matter of those new dogmatic definitions which are from time to time made, and which in all times are the clothing and the illustration of the Catholic dogma as already defined. And I submit myself to those other decisions of the Holy See, theological or not, through the organs which it has itself appointed, which, waiving the question of their infallibility, on the lowest ground come to me with a claim to be accepted and obeyed. Also, I consider that, gradually and in the course of ages, Catholic inquiry has taken certain definite shapes, and has thrown itself into the form of a science, with a method and a phraseology of its own, under the intellectual handling of great minds, such as St Athanasius, St Augustine, and St Thomas; and I feel no temptation at all to break in pieces the great legacy of thought thus committed to us for these latter days.
(Apologia Pro Vita Sua, Chapter V: Position of My Mind since 1845, London 1864, pp. 238-239, 250-251)
I’ve always wondered what this meant:
“And I submit myself to those other decisions of the Holy See, theological or not, through the organs which it has itself appointed, which, WAIVNG THE QUESTION OF INFALLIBILITY, on the lowest ground come to me with a claim to be accepted and obeyed.”
I take it that Newman felt a happy obligation to obey Church teaching, though he had concerns about the whole notion of papal infallibility at the first Vatican Council, but eventually accepted it.
In any case, some of us Anglican converts continue to pray that, like Newman, we will receive the grace to come off those rough seas into home port.
Thanks for the post.
Jean:
On Feb. 15, 1868, two years before Vatican I, Newman wrote: “As to the Apologia, it must be recollected that it was not a didactic work–nor did it contain a statement of my own personal views about infallibility, but was addressed to Protestants in order to show them what it was that a Catholic fairly undertook in the way of theological professions, when he became a Catholic. I myself, for instance, have ever held as a matter of theological opinion the Infallibility of the Pope; but I carefully abstain from asserting it in the general view which I give of Catholic doctrine. I felt it should be as obviously wrong in setting down theological opinions, when I was declaring the Church’s doctrine as such, as I have thought Archbp. Manning obviously wrong in introducing into his Pastorals the Pope’s Infallibility…’ Newman did not see the need for papal infallibility to be dogmatically defined, criticized the aggressive and insolent faction that pushed it through at Vatican I, and was no less critical of bishops who showed no compassion on people who had difficulty in accepting the defined doctrine.
“Waiving the question of their infallibility” in the sentence you quote may refer to something he has already remarked in this chapter, namely, that he does not extend “the direct subject-matter, over which that power of Infallibility has jurisdiction, beyond religious opinion.” That is, it does not apply to matters of discipline, but only to matters of doctrine. Newman was asked by some prominent English Catholics, like Lord Acton, to say something in this work– which Newman wrote at astounding speed and first published in seven pamphlets that appeared weekly between April and June of 1864–about the charges that the doctrine of infallibility makes it impossible for Catholics to be intellectually honest. This is why the last of the chapters of the “Apologia” has its extended discussion of the relationship between reason and infallible Church authority.
I believe I have mentioned this before, but in case some missed it: At http://www.newmanreader.org/ one can find all Newman’s published works, except for the 30+ volumes of his Letters and Diaries, along with other material on him. The site has an excellent search-engine.
Newman: “I had no difficulty in believing it, as soon as I believed that the Catholic Roman Church was the oracle of God … .”
No one who grasps the meaning of the words “oracle of God” can have difficulty believing what the oracle of God says if they’ve found it. To have difficulty believing what the oracle of God says makes no sense.
But in the time after Newman, when the claim that the gospels prove that Jesus founded the Roman Catholic Church with the successor of Peter as His Vicar on Earth has far less historical credibility than it may have had in ages past, and when people have their doubts about granting first the existence of the supernatural existential and then working backwards to correlate Christian doctrines as meaningful answers to the question that I am — when that stuff doesn’t work anymore — what is left of the “motives of credibility” for the claim that “the Catholic Roman Church [is] the oracle of God”?
Are there “motives of credibility” anymore? If there aren’t, what then? When the Church makes Hell-claims, is she saying to the addressee, “that’s right, you’ll go to Hell, and I know this because of a meaningful experience I once had, so trust me, obey me, celebrate me, and also thank me for this ‘good news’ I’m preaching”? And if so, is that immoral?
Mr. More-negative-than-a-double-negative –
What do you mean by “the supernatural existential”? I’m assuming it means a transcendent/spiritual level of human life. If so, why is that hard to believe in these days?
This is a marginal part of this discussion, but could you please give me a rough answer, and we might talk about it in detail some other time. I think it’s a terribly important topic, but rarely addressed.
Am I remembering Rahnerian vocabulary right, if I say that the supernatural existential is more or less the same as obediential potency? The idea (I seem to recall) is that grace is inherent in created beings. We are radically open to God by our nature. Something like that.
Ann — I only vaguely follow the way in which Kip is using Rahner’s concept of the supernatural existential, but the concept itself can be explained as follows (I’m going to use a modified, copied-and-pasted portion of a paper I once wrote here, minus parenthetical references, footnotes, etc.). The supernatural existential is basically our desire, capacity, need, orientation, call, offer, etc. for/to/of grace and the beatific vision. For Rahner, God COULD have created humans without giving them this supernatural existential — i.e., he affirms the possibility of “pure nature.” However, God has in fact created us with the supernatural existential – supernatural, because it is not part of human nature considered in the abstract; it is a second gift or gratuity distinct from the gift of our existence as humans. This supernatural existential, however, is something “installed” in us from the very beginning. Moreover, it is part of our humanity not merely as an extrinsic superstructure or separate layer above nature, but rather as the very core of our humanity, affecting all aspects of it (like a tree’s need for water, or like salt saturating water). Because humans (and creation?) have a supernatural end, they are “inwardly other in structure” than they would be without that end. The capacity for grace – and thus grace itself when received – permeates all of our humanity, all dimensions of our lives, in such a way that we truly need grace as the answer to our deepest yearning.
Only theology can know, with revelation, that human nature does not exist in a purely natural state and that it has the supernatural existential; reason alone cannot discover this fact. Furthermore, the supernatural existential so changes our humanity that even with revelation, we can know very little about what humanity would be like without it – in other words, we cannot know with any precision how human nature in the abstract differs from what Rahner calls our human “quiddity” (what-ness), i.e., our nature as it exists concretely in this world, always resonating ontologically with the call to the beatific vision. We may vaguely know a few things – e.g., that humans are by nature rational animals – but we cannot experience what it is to be a rational animal apart from the supernatural existential. “Pure nature” is thus a “remainder concept,” what remains when concretely-existing humanity is evacuated of the capacity for grace which is its heart.
However, the change due to the supernatural existential is not, of course, a change that makes human nature into something no longer human. This is because human nature as such has, as traditionally stated, an obediential potency for elevation to the supernatural, i.e., for this call, orientation, etc. to union with God – that is, human nature has an obediential potency for the supernatural existential. Rahner specifies, moreover, that this obediential potency is not a mere “non-repugnance,” but a real openness and orientation – but not in such a way that human nature needs the supernatural existential in order to be complete and intelligible. He locates this obediential potency, this openness to the supernatural existential, in “the unlimited dynamism of the spirit” – a dynamism which we never experience in its “purely natural” form, but only as transformed by the supernatural existential. This dynamism is what makes any spiritual life possible to begin with, but without the supernatural existential, such a spiritual life would always remain in the shadows in comparison to the beatific vision, even though it would be “neither meaningless nor harsh,” and could always be “a positive, though finite, good which God could bestow even when he has not called man immediately before his face.”
Rahner also argues that we can indeed have a conscious experience of grace, though we can only recognize it as grace in light of revelation, and even then we can never be sure what aspects of our conscious, spiritual experience are merely “natural” and which are due to the effect of grace. I suspect that it something related to this aspect of his theory is what is relevant to the way in which Kip was speaking of the supernatural existential — i.e., without the traditional “motives of faith” or preambles of faith, do we have to fall back on the type of stuff Rahner talks about in… well, I forget where it was, maybe “Hearers of the Word”?
Kip notes that the times are different today than in the days of Newman. Further, Newman seems to have doubts about Pius IX overreaching his limits. In any event infallibility is unheard of before the 12th century although the stress on the authority of bishops and Rome appear in the fourth century. Pius the IX went overboard after the loss of the Papal States. Is that similar to post traumatic stress? If the Vatican is the oracle of God then that is truly problematic. Even the documents of Vatican II were basically compromises between different factions.
We need authority in that someone has to make decisions. But the directives of the Vatican have to pass the test of discernment also before the entire people of God. Otherwise we all would have been Legionnaires, or Opus Dei, Cathecumenates, Communios or the like.
Bill: more precisely, I think Newman would say it’s not the “Vatican,” but the Church — the Magisterium, the bishops in union with the pope — that’s the oracle of God, to use Newman’s term, though an oracle that of course rarely speaks infallibly. That’s basically Catholic doctrine and theology. It’s certainly problematic to explain, qualify, defend, interpret, and square with historical criticism and certain historical data, but I don’t think it’s problematic in and of itself. I mean, it may be problematic, but it’s true (perhaps it’s problematic BECAUSE it’s true). You said that the documents of Vatican II were basically compromises between different factions, but that doesn’t need to be an objection to the idea of the Church as God’s “oracle.” The individual bishops aren’t oracles; the “voice” of the “oracle” is in the official pronouncements (however much “static” there might sometimes be). In other words, the “voice” of the oracle emerges from that which is messy, mundane, and human, as befits an incarnational, sacramental worldview.
The one problem with the “oracle” metaphor, though, is that it could be misinterpreted to mean that God is giving new revelations through the Magisterium, whereas in Catholic doctrine the Magisterium doesn’t receive new revelations (or really any revelation at all); rather, it explicates, preaches, unfolds, develops, defines, etc. God’s original revelation in salvation history, a revelation which is mediated through Tradition and Scripture. Infallibility is also negative, marking off what is not, rather than what is.
Brendan,
Your explanation is sterling and you do it as good as any. In practice, there may be problems. Where is limbo, purgatory, extra ecclesia nulla salus, contraception in all this? Not only too much explaining to do. But it distracts from the Christian Way of life which is rarely reflective in the magisterium which is more concerned with empire than with ethics or the Sermon on the Mount. The Church of Dogma has been very harmful. The real church may exist very little in the Vatican. And that is no place for an oracle to be.
\
“Moreover, it is part of our humanity not merely as an extrinsic superstructure or separate layer above nature, but rather as the very core of our humanity,”
Brendan –
Thanks for the explanation. Up until your statement abovet you could have been talking about Aquinas. For him, as apparently for Rahner, an obediential potency is not intrinsic to our nature, but I doubt that Aquinas would say it is at the heart of being human. If it were it would be essential to our nature.
I suspect that Aquinas added this potency to his metaphysical description of human persons because there is a fundamental problem in Aristotle — for him contemplation of God by natural means (human reason) was man’s ultimate good. Unlike Plato he didn’t seem to have any great yearning for the transcendent. But, then, unlike his teacher Plato, he wasn’t a mystic.
I must say that I find it misleading of Rahner to call a potency an “existential”. Of itself a potency is far removed from act., from existence. (But you know the Germans, they love all those fancy phrases.)
You also tell us that “Rahner also argues that we can indeed have a conscious
Hmm. Did not Abraham, and other O.T. saints, become aware of the grace of God? Hmmm.
Oops — that should have beenm “Rahner also argues that we can indeed have a conscious experience of grace, though we can only recognize it as grace in light of revelation. . . “
A lot about Rahner; hardly anything about Newman. May I try a little survey? Has anyone read Newman? He was such an important part of my education both as a master of prose and as a religious thinker, one of my intellectual heroes, from early college on; but from various indications, it seems that he’s not much read any more? A pity, I think.
Parts of Newman’s “Idea of a University” were required reading in English in my non-Catholic, college. They were parts about universities existing in order to preserve and discover new knowledge. He emphasized that it is through the presentation of the pros and cons of an issue that truth is ultimately established. He was confident that ultimately truth would prevail. Hence there must be freedom to enquire. We all know he had an admirable capacity to change his own mind. (I wonder if anybody in the Vatican has read that particular book. If someone did. then it’s a miracle he’s being canonized :-)
At least that’s the way I remember what he said. But I didn’t think of his view as *Catholic*.
Newman’s view is, of course, the same view of universities that the American Association. of University Professors subscribes to. No doubt this was why we were required to read him in my secular school.
I just assumed his view was a remnant of his Anglican days. He certainly influenced me about the necessity for freedom of enquiry and the necessity to listen to all side and to take truth from wherever you find it. So often, Catholics seem to me to think that one’s intellectual outlooks should be a matter of taking sides, like becoming a fan of a ball team — either you belong to the Catholic side or Them. Catholics aren’t the only ones like this, of course.
I think I started the “Apologia”, but didn’t find it interesting. Not my problem, I guess.
I can’t get the link to work. The section cited from the end of the Apologia is for his office? I don’t suppose they’d use the famous passage from his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, but the section cited above, especially given the context provided by Fr. Komonchak, is an odd pick for a man known as a champion of conscience, no?
I remember getting on a Newman jag about fifteen(?) years ago. At the time, IIRC, he was a fave of progressive types. I read “Apologia Pro Vita Sua,” “Idea of a University,” his novel “Loss and Gain,” some old tracts, and a collection published by Image called “Conscience, Consensus, and the Development of Doctrine.” I tried “Grammar of Assent” a couple times with no luck. I think shortly thereafter, a couple biographies came out, and conservatives were re-claiming him.
Funny, the very different ideological uses made of one man’s writings. I recall a comment made in O’Connor’s “The Edge of Sadness” about that generation’s assessment of Newman, made by priests who would speak of “queer old dear old Newman.”
Ann: Thanks for asking about the “supernatural existential”. I couldn’t have done better than Kathy and Brendan when it comes to saying what it is. Even if it’s a great way of stating how things happen to be, because of its connection to revelation, to lead with it would be circular in apologetics, or so it seems to me until receiving correction. But this complaint would only relate to the real world if people pursued an apologetics strategy that leads with telling someone what the supernatural existential is. And, to my shame, that probably does not actually happen.
I regret that part of my earlier comment because people who think with Rahner as they voyage into Holy Mystery probably do not use that pattern of circular argumentation to address inquirers. They’d probably take another approach. And so I too should have taken another approach. I ought not to have mentioned the supernatural existential at the same time as complaining about circularity in apologetics.
What I really have a problem with are approaches claiming, “and that ‘click’ happening inside you right now as you hear this Christian preaching means that same preaching must be revealed by God since he made you for this preaching [implication of the supernatural existential — you're the creation of God who has a universal salvific will, so by the way he created you, given his agenda, you're primed for this bid to draw you deeper into God's self-bestowal, you're groaning for it with a graced groaning]; that’s why it works for ya, son.” Until I know God exists and that Jesus is God and that what you’re telling me is what Jesus actually taught, I can explain the same ‘click’ with two words: wish fulfillment. Let’s only talk this way in settings in which we’re all on board with theism and Christian revelation, and not in settings in which we’re making a pitch for theism or Christian revelation.
In a nutshell: I’m the only Christian I know who cringes when he hears a second person complete the first person’s sentence as that first person launches off into St. Augustine’s words, “God, you have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless until they rest in thee.” I always think, “Shh, the atheists will hear you, you’ll be confirming their worst fears about theists, and we’ll never find an audience with them again.”
Fr. Komonchak: I hijacked your post, trying weave the topics of my own personal Catholic faith meltdown into a comment that could maybe count as indirectly on point. I did the same thing with Matthew’s McCabe post, turning the thing into the Charles Davis Show. I thought I could make it all happen without my comments showing up as “me, me, me — let’s discuss how this post relates to me and what I’m worried about.” Blindness. Sorry. I’ll make being on point my target for “spiritual growth” during Ordinary Time.
Kip –
I wasn’t complaining about either the content or approach in your post. I just wondered what the term meant. It was Rahner’s fault. (I often complain about German terminology.)
The prayer quoted says “your kindly light” but this seems to be a mauling of Newman’s beautiful poem. The “kindly light” is God himself, as in the psalm verse that provides the motto of Oxford University: Dominus illuminatio mea. This is clear from the continuation: “Lead Thou me on (capitalized)… So long Thy power hath blessed me… ”
Just now I am reading a book translated in 1959 — Karl Rahner’s “Free Speech in the Church” — still very up to date, as is Newman’s “On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine” a hundred years earlier.
The events in Belgium are making me feel that all these lovely old discussions about the Church are being erased by an ugly new period. Part of the ugliness is the farcical behavior of the Vatican over the new liturgical translations. They gave the Recognitio to the text, then discovered it was full of mistakes, and have given the job of cleaning it up to a lone American monsignor. Sleepwalking toward disaster…
The events in Belgium are these: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/europe/10403961.stm
Friends of mine in grad school were excited about Newman. I was exempted from a course on faith and reason, which was their introduction. Most of my colleagues would have read Newman but I never have.
I don’t see in the prayer any “mauling” of Newman’s poem. The Scriptures at one time will speak of God as himself light, but at another will also pray: “Send forth your light…”
To drag this back to Newman (and down to my level):
I read Newman many decades ago in my Victorian Lit class at a time when I was still a Unitarian. The point of reading the “Apologia” was mostly to explain growing tolerance of Catholics in England.
But I was impressed by the an essential kindliness and humility in Newman’s writing. Like here in your extract: “I am far of course from denying that every article of the Christian Creed, whether as held by Catholics or by Protestants, is beset with intellectual difficulties; and it is simple fact, that, for myself, I cannot answer those difficulties.”
This was not something I had encountered in Christian writing before and certainly not among live trinitarian evangelicals–a willingness to say honestly, “I don’t have all the answers.” Certainly a refreshing change from, apologists who pretend to have all the answers and offer prescriptions for conversion rather than a (much more persuasive) description.
Some of the religious context was over my head at the time, but I liked it enough to follow up on my prof’s suggestion that I might like Merton’s “Seven Storey Mountain,” which was more accessible to a lay person.
So I suppose Newman was my first push into the Catholic sphere. I mentioned this in passing in RCIA, and our old priest encouraged me to make a study of Newman sometime because he “spoke Anglican.” The post reminds me I should do that.
Guess this celebrates my memories of reading Newman more than Newman’s memory, so not sure what it adds to the conversation.
We should be sensitive to Newman’s use of the word “Oracle” which sounds quite different to the contemporary reader than it did to his (classically) educated audience.
May I recommend the Parochial and Plain Sermons? Written in his Anglican days, they still repay reading. They are instructive for this reason alone: in all the volumes I can count on onwe hand the times Newman quotes anything other than scripture – if you love biblical homilies, he is hard to beat.
Ann — I’m glad you liked the explanation! Also, just to clarify: Rahner is not calling our obediential potency the supernatural existential. Our obediential potency is not the supernatural existential; rather, we have an obediential potency FOR the supernatural existential. I.e., abstact human nature is such that it is able to have the supernatural existential “installed” within it.
Bill — thanks for your compliment about what I wrote! You went on to write, “In practice, there may be problems. Where is limbo, purgatory, extra ecclesia nulla salus, contraception in all this? Not only too much explaining to do. But it distracts from the Christian Way of life…” I’m not quite sure what you mean by that list of issues, though certainly they’re problematic issues. Newman himself deals with some of the questions you seem to be raising in his “Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine,” but here’s a few comments of my own:
1) LIMBO: As I’m sure you know, Limbo was not official Church teaching, though certainly many treated it like it was. But I would imagine that theologians knew it wasn’t “de fide.” In fact, some of the current theories of how unbaptized babies can still “go” to Heaven seem to have been around for a long time before the post-Vatican II era. I’m looking at Ludwig Ott’s manual “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,” first published in English in 1955 — pages 113-114. It marks as “de fide” the proposition that “Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God.” It later of course mentions Limbo, but it never presents it as official Church teaching; it’s presented as an opinion of theologians, though one adopted by Pope Pius VI against the Synod of Pistoia. Now, here’s the interesting part, where more contemporary theories are anticipated:
“The spiritual re-birth of young infants can be achieved in an extra-sacramental manner through baptism by blood (cf. the baptism by blood of the children of Bethlehem). Other emergency means of baptism for children dying without sacramental baptism, such as prayer and desire of the parents or the Church (vicarious baptism of desire — Cajetan [that blew my mind, that as far back as Cajetan this was considered!]), or the attainment of the use of reason in the moment of death, so that the dying child can decide for or against God (baptism of desire — H. Klee), or suffering and death of the child as quasi-Sacrament (baptism of suffering — H. Schell), are indeed, possible, but their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation.”
2) PURGATORY — This is dogma, but why is it problematic? Are you saying it’s problematic from a doctrinal development standpoint, or Scriptural standpoint, etc.? I’ve always found Purgatory to be a hopeful doctrine, and beautiful — a metaphor to understand it would be the purifying fire of God’s love, a love so intensely passionate that it burns away the slightest speck that could prevent the most complete embrace, etc.
3) EXTRA ECCLESIA NULLA SALUS — This is still Church teaching, but of course it has to be understood properly. I.e., it all depends on what you mean by “outside” and by “Church.” “Church” here must be understood in the sense of the Mystical Body of Christ; it’s possible to be part of the Church by an implicit baptism of desire, etc. — which is basically Rahner’s anonymous Christianity (it always puzzles me why more conservative Catholics get so vexed over anonymous Christianity; it’s really just implicit baptism of desire, invincible ignorance, etc., which has been recognized for centuries). In spite of all this, though, “extra ecclesia nulla salus” is of course one of those doctrines that you don’t go around talking about too loudly.
4) CONTRACEPTION — this isn’t an infallible teaching, though of course some argue that it is. Though of course the Church still asks for “religious assent” (obsequium –sp?)to it — though naturally there’s debate over what exactly that means.
You said this is “too much explaining to do,” but I guess I tend to think that life isn’t always simple. You say that “it distracts from the Christian Way of life…” — does it? How? And if it does, does it need to?
You say that the Christian Way of life is rarely reflected in the Magisterium — if by “Magisterium” here you simply mean the hierarchy, I’d certainly agree. Though then again, perhaps the same could be said of almost all of us. I’d have to disagree that the “Church of Dogma” has been harmful — certainly the Church as an institution has done horrible things and is often corrupt, but that that doesn’t mean that the grace of the sacraments, infallibility, etc. cannot be operative through the Church as Mystical Body of Christ, through the Magisterium (understood as something transcending the individual corrupt bishops, etc.). I.e., we’re not Donatists. Also, don’t forget that “dogma” includes dogmas such as “God is love” and “love one another as I have loved you,” etc. In other words, in a way, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus was preaching “dogmas.” As for the Vatican being “no place for an oracle to be,” didn’t Jesus come to save sinners? Isn’t a God who becomes incarnate in creation and history one who is not afraid to enter into the messy mud of humanity?
In response to the call for “more Newman” — I first read Newman in the spring semester of 2004, during my junior year at Georgetown in a class with a Jesuit. We spent most of the time on the “Apologia,” and used the study of Newman as a way of “spiralling inward” towards central issues of faith. A lot of what I’ve posted in my above comments is stuff that I learned about in that class. It was during the summer of 2004 that I read the “Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine”; we hadn’t gotten to it in class.
I’d always been a Catholic, and my life had been (and still is) a gradual, steady increase in faith, in love of the Church and the Catholic tradition, etc. The Newman class was part of that — in my mind, Newman’s influence upon me “linked up” with Teilhard’s influence on me (I’d had a course on Teilhard in spring 2002 of my freshman year at Georgetown). Situate the development of doctrine and of the Church as a whole within the context of Teilhard’s view of evolution, of all things being incorporated through humanity into the Mystical Body of Christ, of Creation = Incarnation = Redemption, etc., and you can see the explosion that happened: for me, Teilhard set Newman on fire. Joyce spoke of the “silver-veined prose” of Newman: for me, it was not only silver-veined, but fire-veined because I saw it in light of Teilhard.
Up until then, I didn’t really believe in infallibility, or at least I believed only a vague version of it. But the class readings and the class itself changed that. The way Newman discussed infallibility and Church authority at the end of the Apologia in terms of antecedent probability made it seem quite credible to me; I saw that infallibility is “not unreasonable.” I gradually began to think, “My God… what if it’s all true? I mean, yes, Catholicism is true, but what if it’s THE truth, what if it’s really, really TRUE?” I remember a cab ride from Georgetown to Union Station when I was going home, perhaps for spring break — the cab drove past a Protestant church. “What if he’s right?” I thought. “What if there really is a difference between the Catholic Church and the denomination of that church right there; what if the others really are “man-made” in a way that the Catholic Church (and the Orthodox Church in various respects, etc.) is not?” Naturally I couch all this in terms of invincible ignorance, Vatican II, ecumenism, all the loopholes, etc., etc.; “incorrect” doesn’t automatically equate to “damned”; it doesn’t mean God isn’t present and active in non-Catholic religions, etc. But suddenly the world began to glow — I mean, it already glowed with a Teilhardian glow, but now it glowed with Newman too.
“Rahner is not calling our obediential potency the supernatural existential. Our obediential potency is not the supernatural existential; rather, we have an obediential potency FOR the supernatural existential.”
Thanks, Brendan, I read that completely wrong. The supernatural existential is, I think, a terribly important area, including as it does mystical experiences. The trick, however, is to distinguish within the level of spirit the extraordinary experiences directed to God from those not essentially religious.
One reason I think this is so important is because truly religious mystical experiences are just as much much showings, phenomena as are the very limited data of empirical science. What ARE they? Where DO they come from? What do they CAUSE if anything? These real experiences must also be taken into account when trying to form a world-view, or better, a unified reality-view.
This, of course, gets us into the supremely difficult area of the philosophy of mind which still lacks answers to many important questions. But that doesn’t mean the questions aren’t about real phenomena, and neither does the non-material character of these experiences imply that answers are impossible. There *are* those extraordinary experiences, and there are also those quite ordinary longings for the transcendent that run throughout history — witness that meme of Augustine about our hearts not resting
until they rest in God. It’s time the secular establishment looked at these facts with unblinkered eyes.
Brendan –
Are you going to make me go read the whole Apologia? I also read parts of The Grammar of Ascent and didn’t think much of Newman as a psychologist/logician, so I”m already biased against the end of the Apologia. But I”m willing to see what he says about infallibility. I long ago gave up on the notion that mere humans can be infallible, and even if it were *possible* there is no way the rest of us could also know infallibly that they are infallible. We’d end up all infallible, and surely Jesus didn’t promise that.
Yes, the Holy Spirit is infallible, and it is the work of the Church, specifically the bishops, to discover the best Christian interpretations of the Scripture and traditions inspired by the Holy Spirit. But Jesus never promised us that all our questions would be answered accurately, He only promised us the Holy Spirit would help us. Sigh.
Infallibility deserves a whole different thread, or two, or three dozen, or googoo plex. or . . .
Oops — Grammar of Assent. not Ascent.
(Wouldn’t it be nice if reading a logic book caused us to ascend into Heaven?? Still. logic *also* somehow images God, so I suppose learning it might also be a step up the celestial ladder. :-)
On the requirement that the authoritative words of popes and Councils be interpreted through the ‘passive infallibility’ of the ‘whole body of the Catholic people’ (including the ‘investigations and disputes’ of the school of theologians):
“Your second [question], I think, was this: — ‘If the Schola Theologorum [school of theologians] decides the meaning of a Pope’s or a Council’s words, the Schola is infallible, not they or he.’ In answer to this I observe that there are no words, ever so clear, but require an interpretation, at least as to their extent. For instance, an inspired writer says that ‘God is love’, — but supposing a set of men so extend this as to conclude, ‘Therefore there is no future punishment for bad men?’ Some power then is needed to determine the general sense of authoritative words — to determine their direction, drift, limits, and comprehension, to hinder gross perversions. This power is virtually the passive infallibility of the whole body of the Catholic people. The active infallibility lies in the Pope and Bishops — the passive in the ‘universitas’ of the faithful. Hence the maxim ‘Securus judicat orbis terrarum’ ['the judgment of the whole world is secure']. The body of the faithful never can misunderstand what the Church determines by the gift of its active infallibility. Here on the one hand I observe that a local sense of a doctrine, held in this or that country, is not ’sensum universitatis’ — and on the other hand the schola theologorum is one chief portion of that universitas — and it acts with great force both in correcting popular misapprehensions and narrow views of the teaching of the active infallibilitas, and, by the intellectual investigations and disputes which are its very life, it keeps the distinction clear between theological truth and theological opinion, and is the antagonist of dogmatism. And while the differences of the School maintains [sic] the liberty of thought, the unanimity of its memebers is the safeguard of the infallible decisions of the Church and the champions of faith.”
Letter to Isy Froude from July 28, 1875; quoted from “The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman” (Dessain et al., eds.), xxvii, 336-338.
Brendan, here is the Church’s infallible teaching on contraception:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
“Logic,*also* somehow images God…”
It does not surprise me that John Henry Newman would agree that diagrammatic expression is a “tremendous aid to logical insight”. He understands the filioque:
“Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with You in the unity of The Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.”
i
No, Nancy, it is NOT an infallible teaching! There have been 2 infallible declarations in the doctrine was imposed on the church: The Assumption and The Immaculate Conception.
S/B “declarations SINCE (not in) the doctrine was imposed on the church.”
That which is part of The Deposit of Faith is infallible including the complementary Nature of Love.(filioque)
Neither HV, the IC nor the Assumption were/are part of the deposit of faith! The deposit of faith ended about 100 AD when the last of the apostles died and there was no more ability to relate the teachings of Jesus to the church.
You would probably answer that the Pope studies not only Scripture but also tradition (history and the theologians and what Catholics say), therefore, he can find out what is true.
But now the problem is: the Pope has to rely on other people for his evidence, but *not one* of them is infallible. So how does he get a infallible judgement out of evidence that is itself fallible? Conclusions are no surer than their premises, Nancy, and his premises (what other people tell him) are admittedly fallible, hence their testimony is not completely certain at all, and neither is what he says.
Vatican II carefully avoided speaking, as Newman did, of “active” and “passive” infallibility. Fr. Congar contributed an essay to the Doctrinal Commission showing that the allegedly “passive” infallibility of the whole body of believers had at times anticipated and grounded the judgment of the allegedly “active” infallibility of the popes and bishops.
Nancy –
Sorry, my computer has been acting up all week, and only half of my post was sent. I’ll try again.
I agree with you that IF the Deposit of Faith is a collection of infallible truths, and IF, say, there is a statement in that Deposit/box of infallible truths which says that “contraception is always wrong”, then indeed, the statement “contraception is always wrong” must be infallible. But those premises are only hypotheticals, and you can’t get an “fact” out of a “maybe”, an “is” from an “if”.
But let’s say for the sake of argument that there actually is such a box of infallible statements. The question becomes: how do you tell which statement belong in the box?
You would probably answer that the Pope studies not only Scripture but also tradition (history and the theologians and what Catholics say), therefore, he can find out what is infallibly true.
But now the problem is: the Pope has to rely on other people for his evidence, but *not one* of those other people is infallible. So how does he get an infallible judgement out of their evidence when their evidence is admittedly fallible? Conclusions are no surer than their premises, Nancy, and his premises (what other people tell him) are admittedly fallible, hence their testimony is not completely certain at all, and neither is what he says.
Ann — You raised the question of how the rest of us could know infallibily that the Church is infallible, etc. — Newman actually addresses this in his “Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine”; I’ll try to transcribe the passage later, or find it online.
Nancy — Canon Law #749 states that “No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.” It doesn’t seem that Humanae Vitae is meant to be declared infallibly. The only other way I think you could argue that it’s infallible would be to put it under that catch-all of “the bishops in union with the pope dispersed over the world agreeing on a teaching, etc., etc.”
Jimmy — You wrote, “Neither HV, the IC nor the Assumption were/are part of the deposit of faith! The deposit of faith ended about 100 AD when the last of the apostles died and there was no more ability to relate the teachings of Jesus to the church.” I would agree that the teaching against contraception is not part of the deposit of faith — at least, the Church has not declared it as such. With regard to the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption — it may be your view that they are not part of the deposit of faith, but that would not be the Church’s position. When the Church or just the pope defines a doctrine infallibly (as Pius IX and Pius XII did with the Immaculate Conception and Assumption, respectively), they are declaring that it is “de fide,” i.e., of the deposit of faith, part of God’s original revelation, and thus to be given the assent of faith (contrasted with the “religious assent” due to non-infallible doctrines). (I think you also hear it said that they are to be believed with a “divine and catholic faith,” with each of those terms having certain meanings, but I’m unclear on what they mean exactly.) Of course, it took those doctrines — like many doctrines — a while to be developed: that’s the whole point of Newman’s theory of the development of doctrine. The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are revealed by God, contained in the deposit of faith (Scripture and Tradition, or maybe Scripture and/or Tradition, depending on where you fall down on that question), even though it took a while for them to be “unpacked,” and believed explicitly. Again, you might not share that view, but that is what the Church is saying.
By the way, it is my understanding that only two doctrines have been declared by PAPAL infallibility: the Immaculate Conception (1854) and the Assumption (1950), though some seem to think that there are more examples. Does anyone know of any other papal declarations that are, or are claimed to be, ex cathedra statements, even if they were made before papal infallibility itself was defined? Aren’t there some statements of popes in the Middle Ages that are regarded by some as de fide?
I consider matters contained in the deposit of faith to be essential to my Christian belief, my roadmap to salvation, if you will. That roadmap for me does not include a belief in the IC or the Assumption. Believe in them as essential (”de fide”) if you well; I do not. But, then, I’m far from convinced that Papal Infallibility is a matter of faith, either.
Jimmy Mac puts his finger on a still unanswered objection to papal infallibility and the two doctrines that depend on it. The trouble is that the Pope in effect declared himself infallible, which is a remarkably question-begging exercise. The 1870 council was one of the least free assemblies in church history. Even the subsequent submissions of the many dissenters who absented themselves for the final vote was hardly a free act such as one would expect in so momentous a matter. They were asked to rubber stamp the new Dogma just as our bishops today are asked to rubber stamp a horrendous new “translation” of the liturgy, and it was made known to them that failure to do so would result in their excommunication.
Unam Sanctam by Boniface VIII was a claimant to infallible status, but its contents are so obnoxious that it would not wash. Fergus Kerr argued that infallible decisions are made to resolve a “fluctuatio” in the mind of the Church. Since there was no fluctuatio at the time of the Marian dogmas they are possibly not infallible by the terms of Vatican I. There was a fluctuatio about contraception, which Paul VI tried to resolve non-infallibly, without success. Anyway, we have to get away from the idea of the Church as a dogma factory. The only dogmas that have much weight are those of the first four Ecumenical Councils; they were a typical product of Roman imperial procedure, following a Greco-Roman idea of how religious truth might be determined. All later dogmas cut a sorry figure in contrast, notably those of Trent (as well as those in Protestant Confessions and in the 39 Articles) — this is just not a suitable vehicle for Christian self-definition.
Vatican II canonized the Roman doctrine of the infallibility of the world’s episcopate — and talked about the infallibility of the People of God. Perhaps this was meant to cushion the oddity of papal infallibility.
Then episcopal infallibility was invoked by Ratzinger’s CDF to make it out that such teachings as the illicitness of artificial contraception were guaranteed infallible in virtue of the universal magisterium of bishops (blithely ignoring what the bishops actually said about HV in 1968…)
But of course the infallibility of the world’s bishops and of the people of God is not the sort of foolproof propositional inerrancy the CDF likes. It is something more like… Indefectability…
“That which is part of The Deposit of Faith is infallible including the complementary Nature of Love.(filioque)”
Filioque is more in the nature of a theological theory. John Paul II omitted that word when he recited the Creed with the Eastern Orthodox in 1981.
“The complementary Nature of Love” is not a dogma of any kind. It is a nice idea, and of course a true one, if rather vacuous. The only people who invoke it ardently today are gays.
“Here is the Church’s infallible teaching on contraception” — what a laugh! The very document you link to was presented to the people by Lambruschini with the express statement that it was not infallible, and Paul VI had personally instructed him to make that explicit.
Of course the infallibilists will argue till the cows come home that Lambruschini made the statement about infallibility on his own initiative and that the Pope was too polite and considerate to correct him. But the Pope himself often referred to the Encyclical as a contibution to discussion and never once referred to it as infallible. Only when John Paul II swept away what he saw as Paul VI’s wishy-washiness (and leftism — Populorum Progression was discreetly veiled) did the monstrous myth of HV as an infallible papal utterance get a hold. Kung was laughed out of court by his critics in 1970 for using HV to illustrate the uselessness of infallibility.
Newman may not be a great logician, but surely he is a great psychologist.
Brendan Walsh, John Paul II in Redemptoris Hominis goes far beyond Rahner’s abstract anonymous Christian theory. He says the people of the world come to God and to Christ precisely THROUGH THEIR RELIGIONS. Par. 55 or so. This si quoted in Dominus Iesus (CDF 2000).
Is Purgatory really a dogma? The best book on the subject in the last century is probably that of French historian Le Goff, La naissance du purgatoire. It is a nice idea more than a dogma. Rahner also has some nice reflections developing the idea. And of course it is a beautiful idea as orchestrated by Newman and Elgar, The Dream of Gerontius. But it is not really very living theology any more.
“I am far of course from denying that every article of the Christian Creed, whether as held by Catholics or by Protestants, is beset with intellectual difficulties; and it is simple fact, that, for myself, I cannot answer those difficulties.”
Yes, that is the great Newman. He says a little further on that the doctine that impresses itself with most force on mind and heart but has the most daunting difficulties of all is the doctrine of God! All of this comes from his Anglican formation.
“I don’t see in the prayer any “mauling” of Newman’s poem. The Scriptures at one time will speak of God as himself light, but at another will also pray: “Send forth your light…”
Of course there is nothing wrong with the expression “your kindly light” per se. The point I was making is that as a reponse to Newman’s hymn it cheapens it.
One can easily find parallels to this kind of poor reception, which indeed Newman is particularly exposed to, somewhat as Jane Austen is. But Jane Austen has not been hijacked by a horde of ideologists intent on using her for propaganda.
F.Y.I.: Regarding the infallibility of the Pope and when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra:
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/newman.html
One of my favorite Newman quotes: “That is no intellectual triumph of any truth of Religion, which has not been preceded by a full statement of what can be said against it.” (Newman, The Idea of a University; ch. 8, section 7; p. 476). I believe it was T. H. Huxley who said that one could compile “a primer of unbelief” from Newman’s writings, so seriously did he take the difficulties in the way of belief in God and Christ.
Joseph O’Leary, perhaps I should have stated: Here is the Church’s infallible teaching on contraception grounded in The Truth of the complementary nature of the essence of Love. (Love is not possessive as confirmed by the filioque.)
“Let Us Make Man In Our Image…”-The Blessed Trinity
Jimmy Mac, perhaps this may help:
http://www.mercaba.org/MAGISTERIO/humanae_vitae_and_infallibility.htm
You can also refer to The Catholic Catechism regarding The Profession of Faith.
Simply to clarify: The CDF’s commentary on “Ad tuendam fidem” did not include the teaching against artificial contraception among the examples given of truths definitively taught by the ordinary magisterium of the entire episcopate. Neither was it included among such teachings in Pope John Paul II’s encyclical “Evangelium vitae.” I believe that both omissions were deliberate.
Sorry, that should read:
http://www.mercaba.org/MAGISTERIO/humanae_vitae_and_infallibity.htm
“Let Us Make Man In Our Image…”-The Blessed Trinity”
Nancy,
I’ve often wondered about that plural “us” in Genesis. Was Jahweh giving us a hint about the possibility of more than one person/God? Or did it just reflect al polytheistic background from which Genesis emerged? More generally, would this “us” imply that *all* polytheisms (which Western intellectuals generally consider to be primitive hence further from the truth than the later monotheisms) have always had something to teach us?
Yes, this is a diversion, but I wish the theologians on the blog would talk about what God is sometime.
Ann, have you by any chance read de Lubac’s Catholicism? (Just mentioning it reminds me to re-read it.)
Ann, The Blessed Trinity is a Communion of Love.
Actually, I am mistaken. The Blessed Trinity is not just a communion of love, The Blessed Trinity is The Perfect Communion of Love.
Ann: Some biblical scholars interpret the plural used with regard to the creation of man (Gen 1:26-27) as referring to the heavenly court, that is, celestial beings less than God but more than human beings. Von Rad, for example, appeals to Ps 8:6: “You have made him little less than the angels,” where “angels” translates “elohim,” a term often used for gods. In the first creation-account (first in the canonical book, later than the second account, according to the scholars), man stands at the apex of all earthly creatures, but below that of the heavenly beings, who, of course, are below God.
But many authors in the Christian tradition took the expression in a trinitarian sense. Peter Damian echoed this early tradition when he wrote: “For if there were one person in the godhead, he would not have said, ‘Let us make,’ but ‘Let me make.’ It there were three substances, he would not have used the singular ‘our image,’ but rather ‘our images.’ Therefore, while “Let us make” asserts Trinity and ‘our image’ indicates unity, it is clearly obvious that the essentially one God consists of three persons” (Epist. 1, 5).
Hello All,
I’m late into this discussion so my apologies if no one is interested any longer.
Since I rejoined the Roman Catholic Church a little less than three years ago I have had to read and listen to a great deal of talk about HV and infallibility from sources as varied as EWTN, Catholic Answers and this web log. (I participate in this web log by choice but I’ve received ample exposure to other sources from people I’m close to who are trying to convince me that the HV teaching really is infallible.) I have to admit some exasperation with all I’ve read and heard on the subject. I think it’s clear that any views regarding the alleged infallibility (or lack thereof) of the teaching of HV simply don’t matter, expect perhaps as a matter of academic interest. (I’ll be glad to be corrected if I am wrong.) Lumen Gentium says explicitly that we Roman Catholics are obligated to follow the teachings of the pope and the bishops on moral matters whether or not they are declared to be infallible. (I’m sorry, I can’t reference the specific passage because my copies of the Vatican II documents are packed away.)
Sorry for being grouchy on the subject, but I get the impression that those who insist that the HV teaching is infallible (not infallible) somehow think that this makes the teaching more obligatory (less obligatory).
Again, I’ll be glad to be corrected (theologians here help me?), but I think that papal infallibility applies to moral teachings primarily in a negative sense, or to be more precise, the pope will never require Roman Catholics to do wrong. We can trot out examples of popes who have permitted under certain circumstances practices such as slavery, torture and even aggressive war. (See John Noonan’s recent book “A Church that Can and Cannot Change” for a fine summary discussion of such statements). But I think we can be sure that no pope will ever command us to torture people or to own slaves. I’m positive I am doing no wrong by following the HV teaching in my marriage – at least as far as I can tell that’s the only way papal infallibility applies to the teaching if it applies at all.
“The CDF’s commentary on “Ad tuendam fidem” did not include the teaching against artificial contraception among the examples given of truths definitively taught by the ordinary magisterium of the entire episcopate. Neither was it included among such teachings in Pope John Paul II’s encyclical “Evangelium vitae.” I believe that both omissions were deliberate.”
A valuable clarification, correcting what I claimed above. Did Ratzinger somewhere else try to number HV among infallible teachings or have I just been misled by the “ordinary magisterium” talking point of vocal conservatives?
Peter Vanderschraaf, LG talks about a religious obsequium, but I think Paul VI made it quite clear that catholics could disagree in conscience with HV, so that even if their behavior remained in his eyes “objectively immoral” it could still be in their eyes “subjectively defensible” and therefore “diminished in guilt” or “inculpable”. He said this explicitly in a letter to Cardinal O’Boyle of Washington. Consider also that the Church sets a very high value on freedom of conscience, as did Newman, as did Ratzinger.
If HV were an infallible utterance a Catholic would still have the freedom of conscience to disagree with it, but might put himself or herself in the position of being excommunicated for denyin a doctrine de fide. However the Church has never made an explicitly infallible pronouncement on moral matters.
Morality flows from The Truth of Love.
Morality is “doing the truth in love.”
Morality is actively receiving the Truth who comes forth in love.
And the truth is discerned by the Pope if you will, but first by conscience.
“Certainly, if I am obliged to bring religion into after-dinner toasts, (which indeed does not seem quite the thing) I shall drink to the Pope, if you please, still, to Conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards.”
Newman is an apostle of freedom of conscience, and one who more than anyone else set down the strict limits to the scope of infallibility.
“Lumen Gentium says explicitly that we Roman Catholics are obligated to follow the teachings of the pope and the bishops on moral matters whether or not they are declared to be infallible.”
And who wrote and approved LG?
Case closed.