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

John Henry Newman’s, Arians of the Fourth Century

It has been about thirty years since I last read Newman’s Arians of the Fourth Century [1833 first edition (link); 1871 edition with added appendix (link)]. Though Arians was Newman’s first full-length book, it was the fourth of his books that I had read—An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Apologia Pro Via Sua, and An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent being the prior three.

My current interest in Arians was precipitated whilst reading Rowan Williams’, Arius – Heresy and Tradition (1987, 2001 – Google preview). Williams wrote:

The modern critical study of the subject [i.e. Arius and Arianism] really begins with Newman’s justly celebrated essay of 1833, The Arians of the Fourth Century, a work many times reprinted, which exercised a formative influence on British scholarship in particular. Newman rightly claimed a degree of originality for his interpretation of the roots of Arianism… (p. 3)

Newman’s “originality” concerning “the roots of Arianism” was his belief that it was the theology of “the Church of Antioch” which was the primary source for Arius’ theology. He sharply contrasted this Antiochene church with the “Alexandrian church”. Newman’s contrast concerning these two churches is summed up by Williams in the following selection:

The Alexandrian church is held up, in contrast, as the very exemplar of traditional and revealed religion (ch. I, s. III, passim). So far from Arianism being the product of an unhealthy Alexandrian flirtation with philosophical mystagogy, and adulteration of the gospel by Platonism (pp. 7, 26), it is the result of a systematic refusal of true philosophy, a refusal of the wisdom that pierces the material veil of things, in favour of shallow materialism. In true Alexandrian (or at least Origenian) style, Newman regards certain exegetical options as moral and spiritual in character and effect. Antioch’s exegetical preference is no mere alternative within the spectrum of possible techniques: it is a spiritual deficiency. (p. 4)

Williams immediately follows the above summation of Newman’s assessment with a sharp critique; note the following:

One must charitably say that Newman is not at his best here: a brilliant argument, linking all sorts of diverse phenomena, is built up on a foundation of complacent bigotry and historical fantasy. However, setting aside for the moment the distasteful rhetoric of his exposition, it should be possible to see something of what his polemical agenda really is. The Arians of the Fourth Century is, in large part, a tract in defence of what the early Oxford Movement thought of as spiritual religion and spiritual authority. It works with a clear normative definition of Christian faith and practice, in which ascetical discipline goes hand-in-hand with the repudiation of Protestant biblicism (and Protestant rejection of post-scriptural development in teaching and devotion) and a commitment to the ‘principle of reserve’ a mystagogic approach to the faith in which deep mysteries could be concealed beneath simple forms and words and only gradually unveiled. (pp. 4, 5)

And in the next paragraph:

Newman’s version of the fourth-century crisis, then, rests upon a characterization of Arianism as radically ‘other’ in several respects. It is the forerunner of stolid Evangelicalism, Erastian worldliness (‘carnal, self-indulgent religion’), and—by 1874, anyway—the new style of university theology. (p. 5)

Williams' criticisms of Newman seemed quite harsh, and unfounded to me. I certainly did not discern the “complacent bigotry”, “historical fantasy” and “distasteful rhetoric” in my original reading of Arians. But then, given the fact that Dr. Williams is a highly respected patristic scholar, I wanted to see if I could find some basis for his assessments. Subsequent research revealed that Williams had written a lengthy introduction for the University of Notre Dame Press/Gracewing 2001 edition of Arians. On page XLVI, Williams wrote: “Newman regarded the book in later life with some real embarrassment” (Google preview). To support this assertion, he provided four references from the multi-volume project, Letter and Diaries of John Henry Newman. I have the first thirty volumes of this series, so I was able to look up all four references; and yes, it sure seems that Newman himself did in fact regard Arians “with some real embarrassment”. Note the following:

TO W. S. LILLY – June 27, 1882

My dear Lilly,

I return with this letter your proof.[3]

The article is most singularly interesting and arresting.[4]

I think you praise my Arians too highly; it was the first book I wrote, and the work of a year, and it is inexact in thought and incorrect in language. When at a comparatively late date I was led to re-publish it, I should have liked to mend it, but I found that if I attempted it would come to pieces, and I should have to write it over again.

In saying this, I have no intention of withdrawing from the substance of what you quote from me; on the contrary, I hold it as strongly as I did fifty years ago when it was written; but I feel the many imperfections of the wording.[5]

Very sincerely yours, John H. Card. Newman.

[3] Lilly, who printed this letter in the Fortnightly Review (Sept. 1890). Could not remember what this proof was. [See page 434.

[4] This was ‘Sacred Books of the East’, DR (July 1882), pp. 1-32, reprinted in Lilly Ancient Religion and Modern Thought, London 1884, Chapter III.

[5] At the end of his article Lilly quoted with high praise from Ari. Pp. 81-6. (Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman XXX, p. 105)

It was John Nelson Darby’s Analysis of Dr. Newman’s Apologia Pro Vita Sua (link) that prompted me to deeply ponder and reflect on my original reading of the book; Dr. Williams has now done the same for me concerning Arians of the Fourth Century.

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

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

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

This new post has its genesis via the seeds planted from my reading—and related research—of THIS RECENT COM BOX POST by Rory, and his subsequent posts in the same thread. Rory has brought to my attention—what appears to be—contradictions concerning the issue of Church and State relations as delineated in the Vatican II document Dignitatis Humanae, with contributions from previous Popes, theologians, and Catholic kings—e.g. Pius IX, Pius X, Augustine, and Louis IX. (Though not mentioned by Rory in his posts, one could add Pope Leo XIII’s, Immortale Dei—On The Christian Constitution of States—to his list of previous documents which seem to be contradicted by Dignitatis Humanae.)

Now, after reading Dignitatis Humanae; Augustine’s Letter to Boniface, On the Treatement of the Donatists (#185), and his Letter to Vincent (#93 – also concernng the Donatists); Louis IX's Letter to his son [link]; Leo XIII’s Immortale Dei; Ratzinger’s “EPILOGUE – ON THE STATUS OF CHURCH AND THEOLOGY TODAY” (pages 365-393 in his book, Principles of Catholic Theology); and a number of germane online contributions, I have reached somewhat of an impasse—both sides of the issue have strong arguments for their respective positions. I have become convinced that the side one chooses between the two polarized positions depends on one's understanding of the development of doctrine.

As such, I have once again turned to John Henry Newman’s, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. This new reading has raised some concerns that went unnoticed in my past readings. I started this new reading using the original 1845 version that I had downloaded to my tablet, and the following caught my eye:

Now there was this cardinal distinction between Christianity and the religions and philosophies by which it was surrounded, nay even the Judaism of the day, that it referred all truth and revelation to one source, and that the Supreme and Only God. Pagan rites which honoured one out of ten thousand deities ; philosophies which scarcely taught any source of revelation at all; Gnostic heresies which were based on Dualism, adored angels, or ascribed the two Testaments to distinct authors, could not regard truth as one, unalterable, consistent, imperative, and saving. But Christianity started with the principle that there was but "one God and one Mediator," and that He, "who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the Prophets, had in these last days spoken unto us by His Son." Hence Christianity, and it alone, revered and protected the Divine word which it had received, as both sacred and as sanctifying. It was grace, and it was truth. (1845 - p. 338)

So far, so good; I fully affirm all the above. But in the paragraph that immediately follows the above, a ‘red-flag’ went up:

In other words, Christianity has from first to last kept fixed principles in view in the course of its developments, and thereby has been able to incorporate doctrine which was external to it without losing its own. Such continuity of principle, and such assimilating power, are each of them incompatible with the idea of a corruption, as was laid down in an early part of the Volume. The two special principles which the foregoing paragraph introduces, may be called the Dogmatic and the Sacramental, and their assimilating power shall now be illustrated. (1845 - pp. 338, 339)

The notion that Christianity, “has been able to incorporate doctrine which was external to it without losing its own”, seemed a bit out of place to me, so I pulled the 1878 edition off of the shelf, and found the above paragraph missing. I also noticed that the first paragraph I cited above was altered, substituting, “Hence Christianity, and it alone, revered and protected the Divine word which it had received, as both sacred and as sanctifying”, with:

He had never left Himself without witness, and now He had come, not to undo the past, but to fulfil and perfect it. His Apostles, and they alone, possessed, venerated, and protected a Divine Message, as both sacred and sanctifying; and, in the collision and conflict of opinions, in ancient times or modern, it was that Message, and not any vague or antagonist teaching, that was to succeed in purifying, assimilating, transmuting, and taking into itself the many-coloured beliefs, forms of worship, codes of duty, schools of thought, through which it was ever moving. (1878 – pp. 356, 357)

The 1878 edition in the above section has expanded the notion that developments had the ability, “to incorporate doctrine which was external to without losing its own”, to include, “purifying, assimilating, transmuting, and taking into itself the many-coloured beliefs, forms of worship, codes of duty, schools of thought, through which it was ever moving.”

Unlike my previous readings, I was now quite focused on identifying those, “many-coloured beliefs, forms of worship, codes of duty, schools of thought”, that Newman had in mind. Just a few pages later we read, “St. Augustine might first be opposed to the employment of force in religion, and then acquiesce in it” (1878 – p. 367). In essence, the Church which had been outlawed and persecuted, had now adopted the “code of duty" of Her persecutor. [Is this a case of the Christianizing of paganism, or the paganizing of Christianity—more as this issue later.]

Newman follows the above with:

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. (1878 – pp. 371, 372.)

Newman then goes on to provide a number of actual examples of the above outlined principles:

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. (1878 – p. 373 – bold emphasis mine.)

I shall now end this post with two questions: first, if all the above pagan elements can be, “sanctified by their adoption into the Church”, why not the secular humanistic elements found in Dignitatis Humanae? And second, is it possible that a number of the pagan elements that have been adopted by the Church are corruptions rather than true developments—i.e a paganizing of Christianity rather than a Christianizing of paganism?

Grace and peace,

David