The Eucharist/Lord’s Supper and the development of doctrine

...there was no formal acknowledgment on the part of the Church of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity till the fourth [century]. No doctrine is defined till it is violated. (John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, sixth edition-1878, p. 151 – bold emphasis mine)

The dictum that, “No doctrine is defined till it is violated", is masterfully applied by Newman to the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. Earlier in the book, he wrote:

...the statements of a particular father or doctor may certainly be of a most important character ; but one divine is not equal to a Catena. We must have a whole doctrine stated by a whole Church. The Catholic Truth in question is made up of a number of separate propositions, each of which, if maintained to the exclusion of the rest, is a heresy. (Ibid., p. 14)

He then added that it is, “not enough to prove that one has held that the Son is God, (for so did the Sabellian, so did the Macedonian), and 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),” (Ibid. p.15). [I would add to Newman's list that is not enough to prove the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are 'one God’, for so did the Modalists.]

The developed doctrine of the Trinity, as defined by two Ecumenical Creeds and numerous Church Fathers in the fourth century, was being ‘violated’ in many varying degrees and forms since apostolic times. It is notable the apostle Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write, “there must be also heresies (αἱρέσεις) among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you”—1 Cor. 11:19.

Unlike the doctrine of the Trinity—which was openly attacked and violated since apostolic times—the doctrine of the Eucharist had no serious opponents and violations until the ninth century. It is worth reflecting once again on the following:

The Patristic period was full of controversy over many weighty doctrines, such as the Incarnation, the Trinity, original sin and the necessity of grace, and the use of images. Surprisingly, however, Eucharistic doctrines concerning Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist and the substantial conversion of bread and wine into His Body and Blood were not key topics of controversy. Dispute began in the ninth century in France and returned in heightened form in the eleventh century in the dispute with Berengarius. This controversy and the effort to refute the doctrine of Berengarius enabled the Church to reach greater clarity on the doctrine of the real presence of Christ and the substantial conversion of the Eucharistic species. (Lawrence Feingold, The Eucharist - Mystery of Presence, Sacrifice, and Communion, 2018, p. 233)

The fact that, “greater clarity on the doctrine of the real presence of Christ and the substantial conversion of the Eucharistic species”, was reached after the controversies/violations of the ninth and eleventh centuries, should not lead one to surmise that no development concerning the doctrine of the Eucharist took place in the preceding centuries. History clearly reveals that minor developments began after the passing of the apostles. However, what one will not find are direct, explicit denials of nonnegotiable affirmations found in the fully developed doctrine of the Eucharist—e.g. the Real Presence, substantial conversion of the bread and wine, and the sacrificial aspect.

Unlike the doctrines of God and Christology, one will not find extensive treatments on the Eucharist before the ninth century. Irenaeus and Epiphanius briefly mention a few bizarre eucharistic rites performed by some of the Gnostic sects, but none of those aberrations found any acceptance in the Catholic churches (i.e. churches that could trace their origins via apostolic succession). History forces one to conclude that exhaustive works on the Eucharist were not needed in the centuries that preceded the Eucharistic controversies of the ninth and eleventh centuries. This fact must be kept in mind when one examines the relatively few mentions of the Eucharist as found in the writings of the Church Fathers.

I began this post with Newman's thoughts on the development of doctrine, with the formulation of the dogma of the Trinity functioning as the primary model for his thesis. I shall end with some of his assessments on the Eucharist; from his esteemed pen we read:

One additional specimen shall be given as a sample of many others: —I betake myself to one of our altars to receive the Blessed Eucharist ; I have no doubt whatever on my mind about the Gift which that Sacrament contains ; I confess to myself my belief, and I go through the steps on which it is assured to me. "The Presence of Christ is here, for It follows upon Consecration ; and Consecration is the prerogative of Priests ; and Priests are made by Ordination ; and Ordination comes in direct line from the Apostles. Whatever be our other misfortunes, every link in our chain is safe ; we have the Apostolic Succession, we have a right form of consecration: therefore we are blessed with the great Gift." Here the question rises in me, "Who told you about that Gift?" I answer, "I have learned it from the Fathers : I believe the Real Presence because they bear witness to it. St. Ignatius calls it 'the medicine of immortality :' St. Irenaeus says that ' our flesh becomes incorrupt, and partakes of life, and has the hope of the resurrection,' as 'being nourished from the Lord's Body and Blood ;' that the Eucharist ' is made up of two things, an earthly and an heavenly :' perhaps Origen and perhaps Magnes, after him, say that It is not a type of our Lord's Body, but His Body: and St. Cyprian uses language as fearful as can be spoken, of those who profane it. I cast my lot with them, I believe as they." (John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, sixth edition-1878, p. 23 – bold emphasis mine)

Grace and peace,

David

Vincent of Lerins - quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est

The Latin quoted in the title of this post—known as the ‘Vincentian Canon’ and/or 'Vincent's Rule'—was translated into English by Heurtley as: “which [faith] has been believed everywhere, always, and by all” (A Commonitory, NPNF - XI.132). This canon/rule was first expressed in the Commonitorium written by Vincent of Lerins, and was essentially a threefold test for identifying true doctrines from heretical ones. 

Vincent discerned that heretical doctrines/teachers tended be geographically localized, rather than dispersed throughout all the Christian regions; as such, ‘everywhere' (ubiquity) was one of the tests. Another test was ‘always', which meant for Vincent that true doctrines originated in antiquity (apostolic times), and do not emerge at a later date—e.g. the Montanists, Arians, Donatists, Apollinarians, Nestorians. And finally, concerning the ‘by all' test, Vincent primarily had the bishops convened at the Ecumenical Councils in mind (though not exclusively so).

Unfortunately, Vincent’s canon/rule has historically been misused and misunderstood. An excellent antidote to such abuses is Thomas G. Guarino’s above pictured book, Vincent of Lérins and the Development of Doctrine (2013 – Google preview). One of the most important points made by Guarino is that Vincent has a ‘second rule’, and that one must correctly identify this ‘second rule’ in order to properly interpret Vincent’s ‘first rule’; note the following:

A second essential element in interpreting the Vincentian canon is that his first rule must always be taken in conjunction with the Lérinian’s “second rule”: over time growth undoubtedly occurs in Christian doctrine. (Page 6)

I shall turn to the pen of Vincent himself to expound on what he meant concerning the development/growth of Christian doctrine. From his A Commonitory we read:

But some one will say perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ's Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged in itself, alteration, that it be transformed into something else. The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind ; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning. (NPNF  - XI.147, 148)

And:

From doctrine which was sown as wheat, we should reap, in the increase, doctrine of the same kind — wheat also; so that when in process of time any of the original seed is developed, and now flourishes under cultivation, no change may ensue in the character of the plant. There may supervene shape, form, variation in outward appearance, but the nature of each kind must remain the same. God forbid that those rose-beds of Catholic interpretation should be converted into thorns and thistles. God forbid that in that spiritual paradise from plants 'of cinnamon and balsam darnel and wolfsbane should of a sudden shoot forth.

Therefore, whatever has been sown by the fidelity of the Fathers in this husbandry of God's Church, the same ought to be cultivated and taken care of by the industry of their children, the same ought to flourish and ripen, the same ought to advance and go forward to perfection. For it is right that those ancient doctrines of heavenly philosophy should, as time goes on, be cared for, smoothed, polished; but not that they should be changed, not that they should be maimed, not that they should be mutilated. They may receive proof, illustration, definiteness; but they must retain withal their completeness, their integrity, their characteristic properties. (NPNF  - XI.147, 148)

Another important part of Guarino’s book is his analysis of Newman’s theory of development as it relates to Vincent’s. More on this at a later date, the Lord willing…

Grace and peace,

David

An interesting lecture by the late patristic scholar, R. P. C. Hanson

Over the weekend, dialogue has resumed in one of the older AF threads—The Trinity and the Development of Doctrine Late Friday evening, Andries van Niekerk from Stellenbosch, South Africa posted his first comment here at AF.

Following my response, Andries—in his second comment—provided a link (here) to a lecture by R. P. C. Hanson that was delivered back in 1981, that I did not remember reading. He found the lecture published online at a blog named, DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY (link), which he republished at his website with the following introduction:

I post it here in order to preserve it for public use. I corrected spelling errors, added headings, bolded main thoughts and divided the text into more readable paragraphs, but I did not alter the text in any way.

The lecture itself, begins with:

WHEN we read the Creed of Constantinople of the year 381, which is generally called the Nicene Creed, we gain the unmistakable impression that we have travelled a long way from the opening verses of St. Mark’s Gospel. This paper will consist of an attempt to answer the question, Was this journey really necessary?

Some online research revealed that this lecture was first published in the Scottish Journal of Theology – Volume 36, Issue 1, Feb. 1983, pp. 41-57, under the title, “The Doctrine of the Trinity Achieved in 381” (link).

Now, R. P. C. Hanson is one of my favorite patristic scholars of all time. I have read his massive tome, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (link) twice now; and have quoted him at least a dozen times here at AF (see this label under his name).

Two years after the release of the book, Hanson’s paper, "The achievement of orthodoxy in the fourth century", was published in, The Making of Orthodoxy – Essays In Honour of Henry Chadwick, pp. 142-156. (link). Interestingly enough, the note at the end of the paper informs the reader that, "This paper was written before the publication of R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, Edinburgh 1988".

For those folk interested in the development of the doctrine of God prior to 381 A.D who have yet to read Hanson’s book, and/or paper referenced above, his 1981 lecture is a must read.

Grace and peace,

David

Vatican I and Vatican II – antecedents and “unfinished business”

The genesis of this post took place back on Sept. 2, 2019 when THIS COMMENT was published by Rory. Since then, explorations into the issues of apostasy, doctrinal development—corruption vs. legitimate— the validity of certain councils, and the possibility that we may be living in the generation that will experience the second coming of our Lord, have been discussed in the subsequent threads:

Development of doctrine, Dignitatis Humanae, and the Christianizing of paganism vs. the paganizing of Christianity 

John Henry Newman’s "acceptance of non-Christian religions” 

Accommodation for “the Gospel's sake”—the risk of paganizing Christianity  

The Great Apostasy - A provocative, book length contribution, from a Catholic perspective

Vatican I: a ‘rupture’ in Catholic tradition, or legitimate development of doctrine?

As my personal research into the aforementioned issues continues, I would like to bring to the attention of AF readers some germane, and valuable, contributions that I have recently read:

 First, three books that significantly informed my understanding of the conservative, Catholic viewpoint concerning the issue of infallibility—especially the Papal and Vatican I:

Anti-Janus: an historico-theological criticism of the work entitled "The Pope and the Council" 

The Vatican Council and its Definitions 

The True Story of the Vatican Council 

I would also like to recommend a 2018 dissertation that I read over the last couple days:

Eighteenth-Century Forerunners of Vatican II: Early Modern Catholic Reform and the Synod of Pistoia 

This work is so much more than title suggests, and is a must read (IMO). I hope the following selections provide enough impetus to at least take a look the contribution:

This dissertation sheds further light on the nature of church reform and the roots of the Second Vatican Council (1962–65) through a study of eighteenth-century Catholic reformers who anticipated Vatican II. The most striking of these examples is the Synod of Pistoia (1786), the high-water mark of “late Jansenism.” Most of the reforms of the Synod were harshly condemned by Pope Pius VI in the Bull Auctorem fidei (1794), and late Jansenism was totally discredited in the increasingly ultramontane nineteenth-century Catholic Church. Nevertheless, many of the reforms implicit or explicit in the Pistoian agenda – such as an exaltation of the role of bishops, an emphasis on infallibility as a gift to the entire church, religious liberty, a simpler and more comprehensible liturgy that incorporates the vernacular, and the encouragement of lay Bible reading and Christocentric devotions – were officially promulgated at Vatican II. (From the Abstract, n.p.)

…reform occurred at the Council in the form of the development of doctrine. The idea that doctrine could develop was rejected by most early modern Catholic theologians. It was totally antithetical to the Gallican tradition, and the immutability of doctrine was a primary claim wielded in anti-Protestant polemic. Because of the work of Newman and others, the concept of development became the established way of explaining doctrines that were not explicit in scripture or the earliest Christian sources (the Marian dogmas of 1854 and 1950 loom large here). The notion of development itself is embedded in Dei verbum, and defined in §8.

Development, however, is a fundamentally conservative type of reform, like ressourcement and unlike aggiornamento. By its very nature, development brings to light elements implicit in an existing doctrine or idea. The most conservative council fathers at Vatican II recognized at least some form of the development of doctrine. (Pages 32, 33 – bold emphasis mine)

Just as concerns about the “unfinished business” of Vatican I survived long after that Council closed in 1870, so have the concerns described by Routhier endured past the fiftieth anniversary of the closing of Vatican II. There were important moments in this continued debate in the Catholic Church in the postconciliar period, such as the revision of Canon Law in 1983, the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops in 1985, and the promulgation of Ut unum sint (1995) and Apostolos suos (1998) by Pope John Paul II. In the papacy of Francis, however, calls for a re-examination of collegiality, often through appeals to “synodality,” are increasing. In light of the collegial deliberations of the Synod on the Family (4–25 October 2015) and the widely diverging reactions to the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia (19 May 2016), the Catholic Church may again be preparing for a major debate surrounding the exercise of the papal primacy in light of episcopal collegiality. (Page 369)

Looking forward to some in depth discourse…

Grace and peace,

David

Power in Unity, Diversity in Rank: Subordination and the Trinity in the Fathers of the Early Church - a valuable paper

Back on January 30, 2020 I reviewed a book by the Evangelical scholar, Michael J. Svigel (link). The book was the second contribution of his that I have read; the first being a paper that he delivered back in 2004 at the 56th Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, with the title: Power in Unity Diversity in Rank - Subordination and the Trinity in the Fathers of the Early Church. [Full paper available in PDF format HERE.]

This paper is one of the better treatments concerning the doctrine of God in the Greek Church Fathers from the late 1^st century through the end of the 2^nd century.

As the introduction of the paper explicitly points out, Dr. Svigel’s analysis/survey is inextricably linked to the Trinitarian controversy concerning the issue of subordination that arose within Evangelicalism with the publication of John Dahms' article, “The Generation of the Son”, back in 1989 [link - see also his subsequent article].

With the above in mind, I was pleasantly surprised to find that the majority of the paper remained quite objection in its analyses—the section on Irenaeus being the most in depth survey. The quotations from the Greek Fathers concerning the doctrine of God that he surveys are exhaustive; I noticed only a few notably exclusions—e.g. citations of Proverbs 8:22 by Justin and Athenagoras with reference to the origin of the Son of God. [See this thread for the citations.]

I was also pleased that Dr. Svigel touches on the issue of the monarchy of God the Father. Note the following selections:

In Ignatius’s thinking the Father is the ultimate authority, the monarchia of the Godhead, and this relationship seems to precede and transcend the limits of the incarnation. (Page 7)

…the fact that for Athenagoras (and, in fact, for all of the writers of the second century), the monarchia of the Godhead rests with the Father while the Son and Spirit operate in submission to the Father’s will. (Page 27)

There is an overwhelming tradition of what is today described as ontological equality and functional subordination within the Trinity that emphasizes the monarchia of the Father. While the Son and Spirit are not creatures, the Father is their head, meaning that all activities conform to his will. (Page 38)

In ending, though I personally do not fully agree with all of Dr. Svigel’s assessments, the paper as a whole is a valuable contribution for those folk interested in the teachings of the early Greek Fathers concerning the doctrine of God.

Grace and peace,

David

Retro-Christianity – Reclaiming the Forgotten Faith: an evangelical professor encourages fellow evangelicals to examine a fuller history of Christianity

A few days ago, I finished reading Michael J. Svigel’s, Retro-Christianity – Reclaiming the Forgotten Faith (Google Books preview).

Joining a small, but growing number of evangelical writers, Svigel in this 2012 book, challenges his fellow evangelicals to explore the history of Christianity in a much fuller sense. He begins the book with a look back at the 1990’s when he, "was a student at a conservative evangelical Bible College" [p. 17], and relates that, “one of my fellow students shocked many in the student body (and alarmed many professors) when he announced he was becoming Greek Orthodox“ [p. 17]. He then. “heard about a free church evangelical who becames Anglican [p.17], and “about a Baptist who converted to Roman Catholicism” [p.17]. He also , “learned that many Low Church or free church Protestants hand left what they regarded as evangelical ‘wilderness wanderings’ to follow the 'Roman Road,’ the ‘Way to Constantinople,' or the ‘Canterbury Trail.’" "Over and over again”, Svigel “kept running into more examples like these: men and women leaving the open fields of of free roaming evangelicalism for the gated gardens of a clearly defined denomination" [pp. 17. 18].

Svigel goes on to identify three categories that these converts from  evangelicalism fell into: aversion-driven converts, attraction-driven converts, and preference-driven converts [p.18].

“The aversion-driven converts are those who simply have had enough of of Low Church, free-church, or no-church evangelicalism" [p.18].

“The attraction-driven converts...claim they were compelled to forsake their evangelical tradition because of their study of church history” [p.19].

“Finally, the preference-driven converts are motivated not by the ills evangelicalism  or the merits of classic Christian denominations, but by personal preferences regarding worship” [p.19].

After stating that evangelicalism appears “to be spinning out of control, losing appeal to younger generations, dwindling in numbers, or selling out to pop culture to muster a crowd”, Svigel then asks two questions: “Where is evangelicalism headed? What can we do about it?" [Page 20]

The above questions are immediately followed with a detailed description of the intent/focus of the book—note the following:

This book will introduce to evangelicals the historical theological branches of the Christian faith that have grown through the Patristic, medieval, Reformation, and modern eras. RetroChristianity seeks to challenge us to begin thinking both critically and constructively about history and how it informs our current beliefs, values, and practices as evangelicals. However, unlike many attempts to change the present by looking to the past, this book also begins exploring practical ways for both individuals and churches to apply its principals today. Arguing that the way forward is to draw on the wisdom of the whole Christian past, RetroChristianity not only points out the trailhead of the biblical, historical, and theological path, but it supplies provisions for the journey without forsaking the healthy developments that have benefited Christianity along the way.

Svigel’s book is a multifaceted treatment. Though ultimately an apologetic work for independent/free church evangelicalism, it is also an introduction to the important topic of doctrinal development, and offers a working theory as to how one can identify true developments from false ones, using Vincent of Lérins famous ‘rule’—correct doctrine is “that faith which has which has been believed everywhere, always, by all”—as a starting point. Svigel interprets Vincent’s 'rule' as, "the core teachings of the Christian faith [that] must never change" [p. 55].

On pages 83-143 (Part Two: RetroOrtohoxy: Preserving the Faith for the Future), Svigel builds upon Vincent’s 'rule' with what he terms the three “Canons of RetroChristianity”. The first canon is: "Some Things Never Change and Never Should". The second is: "Some Things Have Never Been the Same and Never Will Be". And the third: "Some Things Grow Clear through Trial and Error".

I am sure most folk will agree with the stated principles of Svigel’s three canons. However, I am just as sure that most non-Evangelicals will disagree with much of the content that he places in each of those three canons.

On page 143, Svigel introduces the reader to “Part Three: RetroClesiology: Beyond the Preference Driven Church” [pages 145-218]—“With these three principles [i.e. the three canons] as our guide, we now can tackle two of the most vital areas affecting evangelicalism today: the church and the Christian life.”

In "Part Three" Svigel identifies four "myths” concerning the Church: first, “The Church is Merely a Human Organization"; second, "The Church Is a Supermarket of Spiritual Groceries"; third, "The Church Is Just a Gathering of a Few Believers"; and fourth, “The Church Is Optional" [pages 146-162]. The four myths are then followed by the, “Four Classic Marks of the Historical Body of Christ”: "one, holy, catholic and apostolic” [pages 162-172].

Svigel’s definitions of "one, holy, catholic and apostolic” are all violations of Vincent’s ‘rule’ in that they have their origin in the 16^th century via the Reformation and cannot be found in the extant Christian writings prior to that revolt.

On pages 173-198, Svigel delineates what he believes are the “essential marks” of a valid “local church: “orthodoxy, order, and ordinaces.” His understanding of what the mark of “order” means is one of the more interesting parts of the book for me, in that he seems to part with most evangelicals view. Svigel maintains, “that the leadership offices in the church established by the apostles must continue in our day” (page 178), and “that the New Testament apostles and prophets intended that local Christian churches reflect a threefold office later identified with the terms episkopos (overseer), presbyteroi (elders), diakonoi (ministers).” (Ibid.)

The final section of the book, “Part Four: RetroSpirituality: Living the Forgotten Faith Today” [pages 219-279] deals primarily with the local church’s role in the sanctification of Christians. For me, this is the most disappointing part of the book in that his evangelical understanding of soteriology has caused him to misread and/or redefine what Christian theologians/writers taught prior to the Reformation period. One example concerns baptism—note the following:

Let me make one final note regarding baptism in order to clarify a common misunderstanding. Although the idea of “baptismal regeneration" is universal among the early church fathers, it should not be confused with the notion of “baptismal salvation" common in later church history. In the early church, the term “regeneration" or being "born again" originally referred to a practical change in lifestyle. [Page 237]

Though Svigel is correct in affirming that, “the idea of ‘baptismal regeneration’ is universal among the early church fathers”, he is certainly in error in his belief that “[i]n the early church, the term ‘regeneration’ or being ‘born again’ originally referred to a practical change in lifestyle.”

In ending my review, I would like to recommend Svigel's book to those interested in the subject of doctrinal development. Though the book has some serious weaknesses, its strengths outweigh them.

Grace and peace,

David

Accommodation for “the Gospel's sake”—the risk of paganizing Christianity

Last night, I read a recent post [link] by the Baptist pastor Kent Brandenburg wherein he provides a quote from an Evangelical pastor, Paul Washer, which piqued my interest:

If you use carnal means to attract men, you're going to attract carnal men.  And you're going to have to keep using greater carnal means to keep them in the church.

Later in the post, pastor Brandenburg brings up two important Biblical concepts, that in my experience, are rarely discussed, and/or practiced in our day: church discipline and separation.

While reflecting on the above issues of carnality, discipline and separation, some of the quotations from the writings of John Henry Newman that I have recently provided here at AF—see this post—came to mind, and seem germane to our topic at hand. Here again are the quotes I am thinking of:

There is in truth a certain virtue or grace in the Gospel which changes the quality of doctrines, opinions, usages, actions, and personal characters when incorporated with it, and makes them right and acceptable to its Divine Author, whereas before they were either infected with evil, or at best but shadows of the truth. This is the principle, above spoken of, which I have called the Sacramental.  (An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, 1878/1989. p. 368 - bold emphasis mine.)

Confiding then in the power of Christianity to resist the infection of evil, and to transmute the very instruments and appendages of demon-worship to an evangelical use, and feeling also that these usages had originally come from primitive revelations and from the instinct of nature, though they had been corrupted ; and that they must invent what they needed, if they did not use what they found ; and that they were moreover possessed of the very archetypes, of which paganism attempted the shadows; the rulers of the Church from early times were prepared, should the occasion arise, to adopt, or imitate, or sanction the existing rites and customs of the populace, as well as the philosophy of the educated class. (Ibid. pp. 371, 372 - bold emphasis mine.)

In the course of the fourth century two movements or developments spread over the face of Christendom, with a rapidity characteristic of the Church ; the one ascetic, the other ritual or ceremonial. We are told in various ways by Eusebius, that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness ; holy water ; asylums ; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields ; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church. (Ibid. p. 373, - bold emphasis mine.)

I suspect that pastor Brandenburg would equate the adoption of “instruments and appendages of demon-worship”—i.e certain pagan ceremonies, festivals, rituals and eventually the use of images—with ‘carnal means’. I am not so certain that I can provide a solid apologia to discourage this.

But, with that said, of late I have been reflecting on a concept which some have termed, ‘accommodation’. The apostle Paul alludes to a form of accommodation in his first epistle to the Corinthians:

For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you. (1 Cor. 9:19-23)

The question that needs to be addressed is: when does adoption and accommodation become ‘carnal means’?

Grace and peace,

David

John Henry Newman’s "acceptance of non-Christian religions”

A couple of days ago, whilst engaged in research concerning some enigmatic statements contained within Newman’s  An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, I found a provocative article by Matthew Ramsay titled, “Ex Umbris: Newman’s New Evangelization”, which is germane to my investigation into those statements. Ramsay’s article seems to be an attempt to justify Newman’s overall, positive acceptance of non-Christian religious thought and practice in his apologetic methodology.

[PDF copy available via THIS LINK.]

From the opening abstract, we read:

This article investigates Newman’s arguments for Christianity in light of his acceptance of non-Christian religions. Drawing primarily on the Grammar of Assent and the Oxford University Sermons, as well as Newman’s poetry, prayers, and other works, I argue that Newman’s acceptance of other religions forms the foundation of his Christian apologetic. I first look at Newman’s view of non-Christian religions, where he sees an ascending movement of humanity searching for God and a descending movement of God revealing himself to humanity. (Page 1)

On the next page, Ramsay wrote:

Cardinal Avery Dulles has argued that “Newman made a major contribution by bringing out the importance of what he called ‘natural religion’ as a presupposition for the effectiveness of any demonstratio christiana.” Against the prevailing apologetics of Italian manuals, which attempted to convert by sheer logic, Newman developed a holistic apologetic that sees Christianity as the fulfillment of humanity’s natural religious inclinations. (Page 2)

He then lists four elements concerning Newman’s argument for religious faith:

Newman argued, first, that religion can be good and true outside of Christian revelation; second, that even in non-religious assent, people are not convinced by reason alone; third, that assent to Christianity models other types of assent, which means that religious knowledge outside of Christianity provides the foundation of conversion to Christianity; and finally that the New Testament provides examples of evangelization that follows this model. (Ibid.)

Towards the end of his article, Ramsay advances the following:

Newman’s apologetic is essentially based on two convictions: religious faith is rooted in natural religion, and we are not convinced by reason alone. True natural religion comes from the ascending movements of reason, conscience, and an innate desire for God, and from the descending movement of God’s wide action throughout the world. Assent in all matters of life comes from experience, prior beliefs, and internal convictions rather than reason alone. Religious conversion, then, is rooted in prior religious knowledge and practice, and Christianity is the fulfillment of religious truth already believed and lived.

Because conversion is a movement from partial to fuller truth, a Christian must be willing to recognize truth and goodness outside Christianity. This recognition is not a denial of the centrality of Christ but an affirmation of God’s power and action throughout history. Nor is it a rejection of evangelization. Truth in umbris et imaginibus seeks fulfillment in the One who is “the way, and the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). (Page 18)

[The above brings to mind the Vatican II document Nostra Aetate, wherein we read: The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.]

Though Ramsay’s article has been a useful aid in my ongoing study of the recently sainted John Henry Newman, I am still left pondering over the following selections from his pen:

I do not know when I first learnt to consider that Antiquity was the true exponent of the doctrines of Christianity and the basis of the Church of England; but I take it for granted that the works of Bishop Bull, which at this time I read, were my chief introduction to this principle. The course of reading, which I pursued in the composition of my volume, was directly adapted to develop it in my mind. What principally attracted me in the ante-Nicene period was the great Church of Alexandria, the historical centre of teaching in those times. Of Rome for some centuries comparatively little is known. The battle of Arianism was first fought in Alexandria; Athanasius, the champion of the truth, was Bishop of Alexandria; and in his writings he refers to the great religious names of an earlier date, to Origen, Dionysius, and others, who were the glory of its see, or of its school. The broad philosophy of Clement and Origen carried me away; the philosophy, not the theological doctrine; and I have drawn out some features of it in my volume, with the zeal and freshness, but with the partiality, of a neophyte. Some portions of their teaching, magnificent in themselves, came like music to my inward ear, as if the response to ideas, which, with little external to encourage them, I had cherished so long. These were based on the mystical or sacramental principle, and spoke of the various Economies or Dispensations of the Eternal. I understood these passages to mean that the exterior world, physical and historical, was but the manifestation to our senses of realities greater than itself. Nature was a parable: Scripture was an allegory: pagan literature, philosophy, and mythology, properly understood, were but a preparation for the Gospel. The Greek poets and sages were in a certain sense prophets; for "thoughts beyond their thought to those high bards were given." (Apologia Pro Vita Sua, 1865/1945, pp. 17, 18 – bold emphasis mine.)

There are various revelations all over the earth which do not carry with them the evidence of their divinity. Such are the inward suggestions and secret illuminations granted to so many individuals; such are the traditionary doctrines which are found among the heathen, that "vague and unconnected family of religious truths, originally from God, but sojourning, without the sanction of miracle or a definite home, as pilgrims up and down the world, and discernible and separable from the corrupt legends with which they are mixed, by the spiritual mind alone. (An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, 1878/1989, p. 79 - bold emphasis mine.)

There is in truth a certain virtue or grace in the Gospel which changes the quality of doctrines, opinions, usages, actions, and personal characters when incorporated with it, and makes them right and acceptable to its Divine Author, whereas before they were either infected with evil, or at best but shadows of the truth. This is the principle, above spoken of, which I have called the Sacramental.  (Ibid. p. 368 - bold emphasis mine.)

Confiding then in the power of Christianity to resist the infection of evil, and to transmute the very instruments and appendages of demon-worship to an evangelical use, and feeling also that these usages had originally come from primitive revelations and from the instinct of nature, though they had been corrupted ; and that they must invent what they needed, if they did not use what they found ; and that they were moreover possessed of the very archetypes, of which paganism attempted the shadows; the rulers of the Church from early times were prepared, should the occasion arise, to adopt, or imitate, or sanction the existing rites and customs of the populace, as well as the philosophy of the educated class. (Ibid. pp. 371, 372 - bold emphasis mine.)

In the course of the fourth century two movements or developments spread over the face of Christendom, with a rapidity characteristic of the Church ; the one ascetic, the other ritual or ceremonial. We are told in various ways by Eusebius, that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness ; holy water ; asylums ; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields ; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church. (Ibid. p. 373, - bold emphasis mine.)

After relating the replacement of festivals, rites, shrines and temples dedicated to pagan gods and heroes with Christian martyrs, Newman then writes:

The introduction of Images was still later, and met with more opposition in the West than in the East. It is grounded on the same great principle which I am illustrating; and as I have given extracts from Theodoret for the developments of the fourth and fifth centuries, so will I now cite St. John Damascene in defence of the further developments of the eighth.

"As to the passages you adduce," he says to his opponents, "they abominate not the worship paid to our Images, but that of the Greeks, who made them gods. It needs not therefore, because of the absurd use of the Greeks, to abolish our use which is so pious. Enchanters and wizards use adjurations, so does the Church over its Catechumens; but they invoke devils, and she invokes God against devils. Greeks dedicate images to devils, and call them gods; but we to True God Incarnate, and to God's servants and friends, who drive away the troops of devils." Again, "As the holy Fathers overthrew the temples and shrines of the devils, and raised in their places shrines in the names of Saints and we worship them, so also they overthrew the images of the devils, and in their stead raised images of Christ, and God's Mother, and the Saints. And under the Old Covenant, Israel neither raised temples in the name of men, nor was memory of man made a festival; for, as yet, man's nature was under a curse, and death was condemnation, and therefore was lamented, and a corpse was reckoned unclean and he who touched it; but now that the Godhead has been combined with our nature, as some life-giving and saving medicine, our nature has been glorified and is trans-elemented into incorruption. Wherefore the death of Saints is made a feast, and temples are raised to them, and Images are painted ... For the Image is a triumph, and a manifestation, and a monument in memory of the victory of those who have done nobly and excelled, and of the shame of the devils defeated and overthrown." (Ibid. pp. 376, 377 - bold emphasis mine.)

Back to my studies…

Grace and peace,

David