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

An interesting nineteenth century prayer

The biographies/histories on Alexander Campbell, Peter Cartwright, Charles Finney, and Charles Hodge—four important figures of 19^th century American Christianity—provided by Lynne Wilson in his 2010 dissertation [link], prompted me to look into other folk of 19^th century American Christianity. One gent who caught my eye was Henry Grew [Wikipedia link]. 

At the beginning of his book, An Examination of the Divine Testimony Concerning the Character of the Son of God (1824), he provided the following prayer:

O LIGHT DIVINE ! O SPIRIT OF TRUTH ! beam on my dark mind, irradiate my benighted soul, to know him who is the joy of earth, and the glory of heaven. Open upon me the vision of truth, and shine into my heart, to give me the light of the knowledge of thy glory as it shines in the face of Jesus Christ. Rectify the errors of my understanding, and remove the coldness of my heart, by the overflowing of thy holy love. Oh, elevate my soul to the contemplation of the things which “the angels desire to look into;" the divinity, the humanity, the wisdom, power and love of that blest name which "is as ointment poured forth.” And while I am “looking unto Jesus,” encircle me with that holy radiance of truth which shall dispel all my darkness. O my God, what thou hast been pleased, in thine infinite love, to reveal concerning thy “beloved Son,” that mortals may have a glimpse of thy glory, grant me to know. I desire not to look into those “secret things” which belong to thee alone. It is my highest felicity to acknowledge, to love, and to adore thee as the incomprehensible source of all perfection, and to feel, that in thy sight I am less than nothing and vanity. But, O my Father , is it not my eternal life to know thee, “the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent?" Thou seest me encompassed with mine own infirmity, and with the diverse systems and traditions of erring men . Oh, call me away from these polluted streams to thine own pure fountain. Pity a poor worm of the dust that looks towards thee to direct his path, and in thine infinite condescension and mercy, grant me an understanding of that “wisdom of God” which the redeemed multitude shall celebrate to eternity, for thy dear Son's sake . Amen

Back to my studies…

Grace and peace,

David

Joseph Smith's Doctrine of the Holy Spirit Contrasted with Cartwright, Campbell, Hodge, and Finney

Last week, I discovered Lynne Wilson’s dissertation—Joseph Smith's Doctrine of the Holy Spirit Contrasted with Cartwright, Campbell, Hodge, and Finney [LINK]. It happened almost by accident whilst I was checking some references from Matthew Brown’s, A Pillar of Light. Wilson’s contribution was not one of Brown’s references, but came up on the third page of a Google search. The title included three important figures of 19^th century American Christianity—Campbell, Hodge and Finney—that I am quite familiar with, so I immediately downloaded the PDF, holding off on reading it until I finished Brown’s book.

From Wilson’s abstract, we read:

The dissertation is an historical-critical examination of Joseph Smith’s (1805-1844) sermons and writings from 1830 to 1844 to determine the scope of his doctrine on the Holy Ghost. Many biographers dismiss Joseph Smith as a product of his environment. Superficially, his thoughts on the Holy Ghost appear to fall within the mainstream of the enthusiastic outbursts of the Second Great Awakening, but a closer look shows that they are an abrupt and radical departure from the pneumatology of his day. To clarify the unique parameters of Smith’s pneumatology, it is necessary to place Smith's views in a historical context by examining the ideas circulating on the Holy Spirit in the early nineteenth century American Protestant thought. Smith’s views are compared to those of four of his contemporaries: Peter Cartwright (1785-1872) Alexander Campbell (1788- 1866), Charles Finney (1792-1875), and Charles Hodge (1797-1878). We examine these four men's use of the Holy Spirit from their sermons and other writings, and then compare them to Smith's interpretation.

I found Wilson’s dissertation to be quite informative. I suspect that even folk who are not particularly interested in Mormon studies will find value in this work. (The first 202 pages of the dissertation have a non-Mormon focus.)

Chapter 1 “Historical Context: Reactions to Revelation and to Mormonism”, “outlines two historical phenomena: a general early American religious interest in the Holy Spirit and a specific religious reaction to the rise and development of Mormonism in the early nineteenth century" (p. 13). Wilson starts with a look into a number of historical periods within America’s religious history, beginning with, the “Colonial (1620-1700)”, which included “immigrating Pilgrims, Puritans, Quakers, Dutch Reformed, Lutherans, Catholics, and Anglicans" [pp.13, 14]. He moves on to “the “Enlightenment (1700s)” [pp. 15-17], and then draws attention to the, “First Great Awakening (1740s)” [pp. 17-20]—from this section we read:

The Puritans’ fervor waned in their progeny until a resurgence occurred between 1739 and 1741, known as the First Great Awakening. The charismatic British preacher George Whitefield (1714-70) ignited a religious renaissance to the thirteen colonies during his seven tours from Maine to Georgia...His enthusiastic sermons captivated tens of thousands, who followed with great religious commitment. A “spiritual new birth” or personal witness of the Holy Spirit was his core message. [pp. 17, 18]

Concerning Whitefield, I learned the following:

Whitefield sought the Spirit’s inspiration during prayer by incorporating lessons from the Imitation of Christ, a handbook on prayer, by Thomas à Kempis (1379-1471). [p. 18]

He then relates:

Equally as important as Whitefield’s revivals were Jonathan Edwards’ (1703-1758)  writings, calling Americans to seek the Spirit in a spiritual rebirth. Edwards, who became known as the father of American theology, emphasized the Holy Spirit working within humanity as “Spiritual and Divine Light immediately imparted to the soul by God.” [pp. 18, 19]

The next period is the “Revolutionary Era (1773-1791)” [pp. 20-22], which is then followed by the "Second Great Awakening (1801-1840)” [pp. 23-25]. This section provides the following extraordinary statistics:

Churches that emphasized a spiritual rebirth or witness of the Spirit before baptism grew the most dramatically during this time. Methodist membership rose from 4,921 members in 1776 to 130,570 in 1806. Similarly, Baptists grew from 53,101 in 1784 to 172,972 by 1810. These numbers are more significant in light of the fact “that the nation’s population did not even double during this interval.” [pp. 24, 25]

After the look into the above historical periods, Wilson then delves into the following topics: “Missionary Efforts”, "Training for the Ministry", "Volunteerism and Voluntary Societies", "Burned-over District", and "Reactions to Mormonism” [pp. 25-51]. The last section includes a survey of the anti-Mormon writings of three of the four Protestant contemporaries of Joseph Smith listed in the dissertation’s title: Alexander Campbell, Peter Cartwright, and Charles Finney.

Chapter 2 is devoted to the Methodist preacher, Peter Cartwright [pp. 52-80]. Chapter 3 is on the restorationist theologian, Alexander Campbell [pp. 81-118]. Chapter 4 focuses on, “arguably the greatest nineteenth-century conservative Presbyterian theologian", Charles Hodge [pp. 119-158]. Chapter 5 delves into, “the greatest revival preacher in the Second Great Awakening", Charles Finney [pp. 159-202].

Each of these four chapters has a “Biographical Sketch”, followed by an in depth, “Teachings on the Holy Spirit" section, and then ends with a concise “Conclusion". The chapters are excellent, giving readers an informative look into four important religious figures of early 19^th American Christianity. Wilson has certainly ‘done his homework’ on these four men.

The titles of the final three chapters are self-explanatory. Chapter 6: "Joseph Smith Junior’s Biographical Background" [pp. 203-257]. Chapter 7: “Joseph Smith Junior’s Doctrine of the Holy Spirit” [pp. 258-326]. And Chapter 8: "Comparing Smith with Cartwright, Campbell, Hodge, and Finney” [pp. 327-369].

Wilson discerned that all five men had a number of, “shared doctrines of the Holy Spirit". Note the following selection:

They all believed in the same Bible and shared biblical thought particularly in four areas: First, each man believed that God’s Spirit took part in creating the earth and humanity. Second, they understood that the Spirit assisted in applying the atonement or cleansing of sins. Third, they also all warned against false spirits and the dangers of being deceived by satanic influences. Fourth, they felt the Lord’s Spirit could commune with humanity, even though they differed on how that communication occurred. [p. 338]

Wilson immediately followed the above with:

On the other hand, the four religious leaders differed considerably from Smith in five major areas of pneumatology: Most notably, Smith did not limit the Spirit’s revelation to the Bible and professed to offer the world “new scripture.” Second, he did not believe in a Trinity that was ontologically one but viewed the Spirit in a Godhead of three separate personages. Third, he taught that obedient, baptized, church members could enjoy the constant companionship of the Spirit, termed: “the Gift of the Holy Ghost.” Smith used this idiom to refer to a special gift received via an ordinance administered through the laying on of hands by those who held a special “Melchizedek priesthood” or apostolic authority. Fourth, he enthusiastically embraced the gifts of the Spirit and believed all of them had been restored to the earth again. Finally, he claimed that the Holy Spirit of Promise sealed baptism and other ordinances dependent upon the obedience of each participant. [p. 339]

Wilson’s dissertation ends with five very useful appendices and a topical bibliography [pp. 370-549].

My overall assessment: an excellent contribution.

Hope at least some folk will take the time to read it…

Grace and peace,

David 

A tale of two tomes - Jesus' Resurrection and Joseph's Visions: Examining the Foundations of Christianity and Mormonism vs. First Vision: Memory and Mormon Origins

 

vs.

A couple of weeks ago, I finished reading Robert M. Bowman’s, Jesus' Resurrection and Joseph's Visions: Examining the Foundations of Christianity and Mormonism—a book I had ordered after discovering its existence during my recent studies into Joseph Smith’s 'First Vision’ (see this thread). I completed the book the day after it arrived, and became resolved to publish a post to bring the tome to the attention of AF readers; but before doing so, thought it prudent to order a book Bowman had referenced that I had yet to read: Steven C. Harper's First Vision: Memory and Mormon Origins.

It took me over a week to read Harper’s heavily referenced tome—nearly 700 notes—spending hours each day checking a number of the works referenced, completing the book itself this last Tuesday morning. These two recent works clearly have diametrically opposing views concerning Joseph Smith's 'First Vision', though both authors acknowledge the importance of this event concerning the origins of the LDS Church. With this in mind, I would now like to share some musings on both tomes, beginning with Bowman’s contribution.

Bowman’s book is in a sense two books—the first half being a solid defense of the historicity of Jesus Christ’s physical resurrection from the dead; and the second half, a negative critique of Joseph Smith’s visions. From the publishers website, we read:

Just as the resurrection of Jesus is the foundation of Christianity, the visions of Joseph Smith are the foundation of Mormonism. In Jesus’ Resurrection and Joseph’s Visions, Robert Bowman compares the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection with the evidence for Joseph’s visions, showing how the historical data confirm the truth of Jesus’ resurrection, and that the accounts of Joseph Smith’s visions are historically unreliable. For Mormons who have doubts about their religion, this study will help them find a more reliable basis for faith in Christ. For Christians, this study provides a fresh angle on the historical evidence for the truth of Christianity. (link)

As related above, the first half is a solid, treatment defending Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead as a historical reality. It confronts the various theories that have been advanced by skeptics and non-Christians in their attempt to explain away the New Testament’s and early Church Fathers’ affirmation of the resurrection event. An important aspect of Bowman's defense is the use and referencing of a number of recent, full-length works that focus on the historicity of Jesus' resurrection by internationally recognized scholars—e.g. William Lane Craig, Craig Evans, Craig Keener, Michael Licona, Lydia and Timothy McGrew, N. T. Wright—scholars I have a good deal of respect for. After focusing on the Gospel accounts, Bowman then provides an entire chapter (#4) on, “Jesus’ Appearances to Paul”.

With that said—though I personally believe that the first half of the book offers a pretty good defense—I sincerely doubt that it will persuade skeptics and non-Christians to reverse their denial of Jesus’ Christ physical resurrection from dead as a historical reality.

But then, Christians who have been troubled by some of the recent attacks by atheists, agnostics, and liberals—e.g. Richard Carrier, John Dominic Crossan, Bart Ehrman, John Shelby Spong—on Jesus’ resurrection, will undoubtedly find this section of significant value.

As for the second half, I have mixed feelings. I cannot help but conclude that this section begins with the presupposition that Joseph Smith’s visions did not happen. As such, even though Bowman gives the impression that his evaluation of evidence is objective, it clearly is not. In the introduction, he admits that in, “the broadest sense of the term Christianity, Mormonism is a type of Christianity” (p. 13). But, he follows this up with, “in the somewhat narrower sense used in this book, Mormonism is not a type of Christianity” (ibid.).

Bowman clearly has two differing approaches concerning the historicity of Jesus Christ’s resurrection and Joseph Smith's visions. But with that said, I still believe the second half still has value—especially for those folk who are unaware of the large amount of interest/research that has been taking place concerning a number of historical events that Joseph Smith related, which include: the ‘first vision’, Moroni’s visitations, and the ‘gold’ plates containing the Book of Mormon which he ‘translated'. Bowman’s footnotes demonstrate that he is up to date on the literature that has recently been produced concerning Smith’s claims—both pro and con. The major weakness of this section is his quick dismissal of a number of the solid contributions produced by LDS scholars, especially concerning the ‘first vision’. Concluding assessment: despite its weaknesses, I still think the book is worth reading.

As for Harper’s book, if one has the time to read only one contribution concerning the issue of the ‘first vision’, this is THE book to read. Though the author is LDS, he does not avoid ANY of the controversial issues concerning this topic.

In addition to the Introduction and “Afterword”, the book consists of twenty-eight concise chapters, divided into three parts. Part I, “Joseph Smith’s Memory”, deals with the Smith’s accounts of the ‘first vision’. Part II, “Collective Memory”, delves into how others related the ‘first vision’. It includes an interesting aspect that I do not recall reading of before—it was Orson Pratt who first used the phrase “the first vision” to describe Smith’s 1820 vision of the Father and the Son. Part III, “Contested Memory” examines the negative treatments of the ‘first vision’, and the types of reactions to them. Chapter twenty-seven relates the curious case of Jeremy Runnells. Runnells is the author of the infamous 'CES Letter'. What amazes me about Runnells’ case is that in 2012 he claimed that: “I did not know that there are multiple first vision accounts” (p. 239). Runnells before his apostasy from the LDS Church “was a lifelong Latter-day Saint and ‘fully believing’ former missionary.” What I find interesting is the fact that I fully knew about the multiple first vision accounts in the late 1980s. My knowledge of the multiple accounts came via easily available LDS sources—e.g. Milton Backman’s, Joseph Smith’s First Vision (1971, 1980), Paul Cheesman’s, The Keystone of Mormonism – Early Visions of the Prophet Joseph Smith (1988), BYU Studies Volume 9.3 (Spring 1969). The multiple accounts have never troubled me, which really makes me wonder why they bothered Runnells so much.

Moving on, Harper’s book is published by Oxford University Press. It is a scholarly work, but a readable one. If one ignores the footnotes, and just reads the main body of the book, it can easily be read in just a few hours. But if one delves into the footnotes as I did, it will take days to finish—I feel fully rewarded for doing so.

In ending, I want to relate that I am quite disappointed that Bowman did not interact with Harper’s book in any real depth—his treatment of it being little more than a mention of the tome. I am going to be on the lookout for future, scholarly dialogue on this informative contribution…

Grace and peace,

David

Holy Year(s), Holy Door(s), and some musings concerning 1933

I had no recollection of the phrase “holy year” when I came across it yesterday in the pages of a most unlikely source—J. F. Rutherford’s book, Jehovah.

During the last couple of days, I have been researching the use of the nomina sacra found in the early New Testament manuscripts, attempting to understand why early second century Christian scribes adopted their use—not only in the NT manuscripts, but also their Greek copies of the OT—whilst Jewish scribes did not employ them at all. Related to this issue was the use of the Tetragrammaton by Jewish scribes as a substitute for kurios in some copies of the Greek OT they created circa  2nd century B.C. through the 3rd century A.D. (Christian scribes never made use of the Tetragrammaton in any of their copies of the OT).

In this process of trying to understand the differing scribal methods utilized by Christian and Jewish scribes when copying the OT, I began reading a book that I had not read for over four decades—Rutherford’s aforementioned book, Jehovah. Note the following:

The so-called “holy year” has failed to bring the promised peace and prosperity, and that failure should of itself convince the people of good will that God did not authorize the year 1933 to be called a holy year, nor will he hear the prayers of men who try to make it a holy year. Upon earth there is now no peace, and poverty continues to stalk hideously through the land. Jehovah’s witnesses have no controversy with men. Their only purpose is to be obedient to God's commandment to tell the message of truth. (J. F. Rutherford, Jehovah, p. 23 – 1934.)

As mentioned above, I had no recollection of what this 1933 “holy year” entailed. Some online research revealed that the official Vatican website has a page titled, “WHAT IS A HOLY YEAR?” (link). From that contribution we read:

In the Roman Catholic tradition, a Holy Year, or Jubilee is a great religious event. It is a year of forgiveness of sins and also the punishment due to sin, it is a year of reconciliation between adversaries, of conversion and receiving the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and consequently of solidarity, hope, justice, commitment to serve God with joy and in peace with our brothers and sisters. A Jubilee year is above all the year of Christ, who brings life and grace to humanity…

A Jubilee can be "ordinary" if it falls after the set period of years, and "extraordinary" when it is proclaimed for some outstanding event. There have been twenty-five "ordinary" Holy Years so far: the Year 2000 will be the 26th. The custom of calling "extraordinary" Jubilees began in the 16th century and they can vary in length from a few days to a year. There have been two extraordinary jubilees in this century: 1933 proclaimed by Pope Pius XI to mark the 1900th anniversary of Redemption and 1983 proclaimed by Pope John Paul II to mark 1950 years since the Redemption carried out by Christ through his Death and Resurrection in the year 33. In 1987 Pope John Paul II also proclaimed a Marian year.

The mystery of the “Holy Year” was now solved. However, in the same Vatican contribution, I came upon yet another phrase I had no recollection of—“Holy Door”. Note the following:

In 1500 Pope Alexander VI announced that the Doors in the four major basilicas would be opened contemporaneously, and that he himself would open the Holy Door of Saint Peter's.

So, what are these “Doors”; and specifically, “the Holy Door”? The following is from a Wikipedia article:

A Holy Door (Latin: Porta Sancta) is traditionally an entrance portal located within the Papal major basilicas in Rome. The doors are normally sealed by mortar and cement from the inside so that they cannot be opened. They are ceremoniously opened during Jubilee years designated by the Pope, for pilgrims who enter through those doors may piously gain the plenary indulgences attached with the Jubilee year celebrations. (link)

Armed with this new knowledge, two important events during the 1933 “Holy Year” came to mind. The first important event is quite personal, for it was the birth of my father. As for the second event, I can think of no better term to describe it than ‘insidious’, for that was the year Adolf Hitler rose to power, becoming the Chancellor of Germany. I suspect the latter event may have been one of the factors Rutherford had in mind when he penned his assessment of the 1933 “holy year”.

Back to my studies…

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

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

The first to plead his case seems just, Until another comes and examines him—Proverbs 18:17 – NASB.

In the combox of the recent thread, “The Great Apostasy” (link), Tom provided a link to a lengthy essay, “The Vatican Dogma”,  by the Russian Orthodox scholar, Fr. Sergius Bulgakov (Seregei Bulgakov's "The Vatican Dogma").

Fr. Bulgakov is certainly a bright, well-read fellow. My first reading of his essay left an impression that his conclusions concerning the Papacy and Papal infallibility—that both are heretical—were quite solid, and perhaps unassailable. However, subsequent research and reflection has significantly altered my first impression—I now believe that both of Fr. Bulgakov conclusions are flawed. My second reading of his essay revealed a serious misunderstanding of the foundational Catholic dogma concerning the sacrament of Holy Orders. From his essay we read:

If it be said that papacy is not a special order but only an office, since the pope is in bishop’s orders, that will be quite in keeping with the view of the universal church before the schism, but it will be contrary to the Vatican doctrine. According to it, there is a special grace (charisma) given to Peter and his successors—veritatis et fidei nunquam deficientis—which consti­tutes the order of papacy. Roman Catholic theology has gradually raised St. Peter so high above the other Apostles that he is no longer regarded as one of them but as a prince of Apostles. In addition to the general apostolic charisma he has his own, personal one, similar­ly to the way in which episcopacy includes priesthood. A bishop celebrates the liturgy like a priest, and does not differ from him in this respect, but it does not follow that they are of equal rank. The same considerations apply to the Catholic conception of the pope, for whom a fourth and highest degree of holy orders has been created. True, Catholic literature contains no direct expression of the idea that papacy it the highest of holy orders—that of episcopus episcoporum or episcopus universalis, but this is either evasiveness or inconsistency; the special and exceptional place assigned to the “primate” in Catholic canonical writings can have no other meaning.

But if papacy be understood as a special order of St. Peter (Tu es Petrus is sung when the newly elected pope is carried in procession), the difficulties which have already been mentioned stand out all the more clearly. On the one hand, bearers of lower hierarchical orders cannot ordain to higher orders, so that the consecration of a pope by bishops (cardinals) is canonically and sacramentally unmeaning: the pope ought in his life-time to consecrate his successor. On the other hand, if an order is discontinued because there is no bearer of it, there is a break in the apostolic suc­cession as a whole. The permanent miracle of the existence of a vicarius Christi requires his personal immortality. The dogmatic teaching about the pope must certainly be made less presumptuous and confine itself to regarding the pope as simply a patriarch but that, of course, means the fall of the whole Vatican fortress. In any case, as has been said already, the mere fact of the death of a pope has dogmatic implications which have not yet been satisfactorily dealt with by the Roman theologians.

The above is clearly a flawed understanding of the Catholic understanding of Holy Orders. From the apostolic/New Testament period through Vatican II, the Catholic Church has affirmed ONLY THREE Sacramental, Holy Orders: the ordo episcoporum, the ordo presbyterorum, and the ordo diaconorum. The Petrine office is just that, an office not a higher, fourth Holy Order.

Not long after my second reading of Fr. Bulgakov’s essay, I discovered a definitive critique of it. Back on Jan. 1, 2020 a thread on a forum was started which was dedicated to the essay:

SUSIPE DOMINE

On the very next day, a gent posting under the name ‘Xavier’ provided a solid critique of the essay:

Xavier - Reply #5

As of today, I have yet to find any errors in Xavier’s cogent critique. But, I feel compelled to dig even deeper into Fr. Bulgakov’s essay, along with Xavier’s contribution. I hope others will join me in this endeavor, and subsequently share their reflections.

Grace and peace,

David