Thursday, December 25, 2008

Lonergan and Newman on the development of doctrine.


At the FIDES QUAERENS INTELLECTUM BLOG, a discussion concerning the development of doctrine (DD) as espoused by Bernard Lonergan in the book The Way To Nicea (a translation of the first part of Lonergan’s De Deo Trino by Conn O’Donovan), with John Henry Newman’s theory of DD has been taking place during the last few days. Yesterday, I received a request from Iohannes (John) to type up page 13 from the book; I am responding to that request, with this new thread, typing up not only page 13, but a also a portion of page 14, and adding some of my own reflections on the material.

From Lonergan’s pen we read:

In the first place, within ante-Nicene movement we have to recognize two distinct, though related, developments. There is no doubt that those early Christian centuries produced a development in trinitarian and christological doctrine, but this doctrinal development contained within it another, more profound development: the development of the very notion of dogma. But this latter development was implicit not explicit; the question was not sharply defined, methodically investigated and unambiguously answered. Yet somehow the question was both asked and answered within the process of development which, if it had not taken place, we could not now describe. Investigating that process now from our perspective, we can identify and isolate both the question and the answer in a way that the ante-Nicene authors themselves neither did nor could have done. For those early Christian writers, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly, paved the way for the definition of dogma, without really knowing what they were doing. This is hardly surprising, since it is a feature of every significant advance in the field of intellect that it must first be accomplished before it can be reflected on, examined in detail, and accurately explained.

Secondly, there is an important distinction to be made between the type of doctrinal development that leads from obscurity to clarity, and the quite different type that leads from one kind of clarity to another. The emergence of the very notion of dogma, grounded in the word of God as true, was a movement from obscurity to clarity; on the other hand, the doctrine of the Christian Church concerning Jesus Christ advanced not from obscurity to clarity, but from one kind of clarity to another. What Mark, Paul, and John thought about Christ was neither confused nor obscure, but quite clear and distinct; yet their teaching acquired a new kind of clarity and distinctness through the definition of Nicea. But further dogmas had to follow, and then the historical investigation of dogmas, before the fact and the nature of dogmatic development itself could be clearly established.[7]

7. For this reason the question of dogmatic development is a much more recent one. Athanasius neither wanted nor intended to bring about dogmatic development; on the contrary, in his profession of faith he would have preferred to use only the words of scripture, if “the malice of the Arians” had not rendered necessary another mode of speech. Cf. De decretis niciaenae synodi, 32; AW II, 28, 1ff. ; MG 25, 473D-476A.


Thirdly, we can now see how we have to go about investigating the ante-Nicene development. For we have to deal not with one, but with two distinct developments, and not with two developments of the same type, since one is from obscurity to clarity, the other from one kind of clarity to another. (Bernard Lonergan, The Way To Nicea, trans. by Conn O’Donovan, pp. 13, 14.)

[In the above quotation, one can discern an implementation of Hegelian dialectic: thesis-statements about Jesus Christ in the Scriptures; antithesis-development of the very notion of dogma; synthesis-Trinitarian doctrine (i.e the Nicene Creed).]


Newman too affirmed a certain sense of “clarity” concerning the Scriptural witness of the person of Jesus Christ, as attested in the writings of the ante-Nicene Church Fathers and “heretics”. In his Introduction of An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine he points out that there was a consensus among the CFs concerning the clear affirmations about Jesus Christ as found in the Scriptures; but then is quick to point out that:

The Catholic Truth in question is made up of a number of separate propositions [as clearly testified within the Scriptures], each of which, if maintained to the exclusion of the rest, is a heresy. In order to prove that all [ANY] the Ante-nicene writers taught the dogma of the Holy Trinity, it is not enough to prove that each still had gone far enough to be only a heretic—not enough to prove that one has held that the Son is God, (for so did the Sabellian, so did the Macedonian), or another that the Father is not the Son, (for so did the Arian), and another that the Son is equal to the Father, (for so did the Tritheist), and another that there is but One God, (for so did the Unitarian)…(John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Notre Dame Press 1989 ed., pp. 14, 15.)

Newman also wrote:

You have made a collection of passages from the Fathers, as witnesses in behalf of your doctrine that the whole Christian faith is contained in Scripture, as if, in your sense of the words, Catholics contradicted you here. And you refer to my Notes on St. Athanasius as contributing passages to your list; But, after all, neither you, nor I in my Notes, affirm any doctrine which Rome denies. Those Notes also make frequent reference to a traditional teaching, which (be the faith ever so contained in Scripture), still is necessary as a Regula Fidei, for showing us that it is contained there; vid. Pp. 283-431; and this tradition, I know, you uphold as fully as I do in the Notes in question. In consequence, you allow that there is a two-fold rule, Scripture and Tradition; and this is all that Catholics say. How, then do Anglicans differ from Rome here? I believe the difference is merely one of words…(John Henry Newman, Certain Difficulties Felt By Anglicans In Catholic Teaching Considered, vol. 2, pp. 11, 12.)

For those who embrace the NT as the word of God, one should be able to ascertain that the issue is NOT over whether or not there are “clear” teachings/statements concerning the person of Jesus Christ within the pages of the Scriptures (there are many), but rather, whether or not the clarity is such to bring the reader to the doctrine of the Trinity apart from development/tradition (it never has).


Grace and peace,

David

3 comments:

David Waltz said...

Hi John,

Would like to thank you up front for your lucid and insightful response; and, as always, I sincerely appreciate your charity.

Now, I agree, in substance, with your assessment that Lonergan’s “explanation and concrete application do not come till page 49” (actually begins in the latter part of page 48). However, I started my analysis of his dialectic much earlier for two important reasons: first, I wanted to bring to the fore certain commonalities between Lonergran and Newman; and second, I believe the earlier dialectic needed to be noted, for I am convinced that Lonergan’s final assessment of Tertullian is flawed. As you pointed out, Lonergan maintains that Tertullian’s theology was contradictory, and as such, needed resolution. However, I cannot concur with this premise, and for a number of reasons that would take pages to properly elucidate. Earlier this week, I came across a blog that delineates one of the reasons why I disagree with Lonergran. Since Edgar’s thread, Lonergan on Tertullian, does such an excellent job in addressing one of those reasons, I shall at this time do no more than recommend that you read his reflections.

As for Behr and Hanson, I need to brush up a bit on both authors before I respond. In the meantime, didn’t Kepha and yourself participate with Dr. Liccione on Behr’s DD reflections (or lack thereof) ? If so, perhaps you could supply a brief summary here…


Grace and peace,

David

Anonymous said...

David,

Thanks very much for your kind answer.

I looked over Edgar Foster's thread on Tertullian, and while impressed at the seriousness with which he engages the subject, am left wondering just what would be the import of "God" considered as a term predicating relative identity. It is easier to see how color can function in this way than how deity can. For if the Father and the Son are God, then, should they both be God only in a relativized sortal sense, there would seem to be two gods; while if the Father is God in an absolute sense, and the Son relatively, then the Son's divinity is apparently different only in degree from that implied in the relative usage in the Old Testament ('ye are gods'). Tertullian would seem to place Christ on a higher plane than that of the OT usage, but yet lower than the Father. I think this is where Lonergan would say Tertullian's explanation is incoherent, for (besides the relative) the OT provides us with an absolute idea of God as the Creator distinct from the creation. If Christ is God, then he is either so in the full sense as Creator, or else relatively as an exalted creature. There is no way to be fully God while yet a creature; the spheres do not thus overlap. But maybe I'm not getting it? Perhaps somebody else can try putting the concepts together.

Over the summer Kepha and I indeed took part in a discussion with Dr. Liccione about Fr. Behr and development. In the early fall we explored the matter again at greater length. From my perspective the major issue in play was threefold: what can the Magisterium know, how can it know it, and how does this compare to what can be known and verified independently by other informed persons. My last post was on September 30th. It has links to Kepha's summary of the discussion up to that point, as well as a link to Dr. Liccione's last post in a series at Perennis.

Sorry to throw so much at you at once. There's no need to rush in responding. I will be occupied myself over the coming days, and may regrettably not be able to comment as much as I'd like. But I always enjoy seeing your thoughts.

God bless,

John

David Waltz said...

Hi John,

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you; one of my daughters and her family showed up Friday and spent the weekend...

Thanks much for the links; after I get 'caught up' on my readings, I will try and go through the material...


Grace and peace,

David