ITQ 2005 Ernst Jerarq Verdades en Newman

7/27/2019 ITQ 2005 Ernst Jerarq Verdades en Newman

1/25

http://itq.sagepub.com

Irish Theological Quarterly

DOI: 10.1177/0021140005070004012005; 70; 307Irish Theological Quarterly

Harold E. ErnstThe 'Hierarchy of Truths' in the Thought of John Henry Newman

http://itq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/70/4/307The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Pontifical University, St. Patrick's College, Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland

can be found at:Irish Theological QuarterlyAdditional services and information for

http://itq.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://itq.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

distribution. 2005 Irish Theological Quarterly. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized

by Alvaro Pereira on January 26, 2008http://itq.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://www.maynoothcollege.ie/http://itq.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://itq.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://itq.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://itq.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://itq.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://itq.sagepub.com/http://itq.sagepub.com/http://itq.sagepub.com/http://itq.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://itq.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://itq.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.maynoothcollege.ie/


2/25

307

The Hierarchy of Truths in theThought of John Henry Newman

Harold E. Ernst

The author argues that Newman exhibits an implicit notion of the hierarchy of truths, asthat concept has come to be understood following the Second Vatican Council. Hesurveys the evolution of the concepts theological understanding from its introduction atVatican II, then utilizes the structure of this survey as a basis for exploring the congruityof various aspects of Newmans thought with the contemporary theological reception ofthe conciliar notion of the hierarchy of truths.

nitatis redintegratio, the Decree on Ecumenism issued by the SecondVatican Council, includes the following instruction to Catholic

theologians:

Furthermore, in ecumenical dialogue, when Catholic theologiansjoin with other Christians in common study of the divine mysteries,while standing fast by the teaching of the Church, they should

pursue the work with love for the truth, with charity, and with

humility. When comparing doctrines with one another, they shouldremember that in Catholic doctrine there exists an order or hierarchy oftruths, since they vary in their connection with the foundation of theChristian faith. Thus the way will be opened for this kind of friendlyemulation to incite all to a deeper awareness and a clearer manifes-tation of the unfathomable riches of Christ.

The introduction of the apparently new expression, hierarchia verita-

tum, has generated a considerable body of literature since the Council,variously attempting to identify its origin and explain its meaning. In thisessay I argue that John Henry Newman gives evidence of having himselfhad an implicit notion of a hierarchy of truths that is largely consonantwith the understanding of that phrase that has subsequently developed in

1. Unitatis redintegratio (UR), in Norman P. Tanner, ed., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils,Vol. 2: Trent to Vatican II (London: Sheed & Ward, 1990), n. 11 (emphasis added): Insuperin dialogo oecumenico theologi catholici, doctrinae ecclesiae inhaerentes, una cum fratribus eiunc-tis investiationem peragentes de divinis mysteriis, cum veritatis amore, caritate et humilitate pro-gredi debent. In comparandis doctrinis meminerint existere ordinem seu hierarchiam veritatumdoctrinae catholicae, cum diversus sit earum nexus cum fundamento fidei christianae. Sic via ster-netur qua per fraternam hanc aemulationem omnes incitentur ad profundiorem cognitionem etclariorem manifestationem investigabilium divitiarum Christi.2.Aselect bibliography is available in William Henn, The Hierarchy of TruthsAccording toYves Congar, O.P. (Rome: Editrice Pontificia Universita Gregoriana, 1987) 265-7. Hennhas also published a helpful review of much of this literature, in The Hierarchy of TruthsTwenty Years Later, Theological Studies 48 (1987) 439-71.


http://itq.sagepub.com/http://itq.sagepub.com/http://itq.sagepub.com/http://itq.sagepub.com/


3/25

308

Roman Catholic theology. To develop this thesis, I will first survey thetheological understanding of the hierarchy of truths which has evolvedfrom its introduction at Vatican II, including interpretations of its imme-diate provenance, proper meaning, and theological significance. I willthen use the structure of this survey as a basis for exploring the conso-nance of various aspects ofNewmans thought with the theological recep-tion of the hierarchy of truths. Through this procedure I hope to suggest,insofar as possible in this relatively limited survey, that Newman hadalready instantiated a theological outlook encompassing many of the the-

ological impulses only later explicitly associated with the doctrine of thehierarchy of truths.

I note in advance that this procedure of interpreting doctrinal state-ments of the Magisterium according to their subsequent theologicalreception is one Newman explicitly favoured. How can we interpret thedecisions of that Council, how the Popes decisions in any age, except bythe Schola Theologorum, the great Catholic school of divines dispersedall over the earth?3 The Council to which Newman refers is of course the

Vatican Council, the first of that name, and the particular decision withwhich he was pre-eminently concerned was that Councils teachingregarding papal infallibility. But the above citation indicates thatNewman regarded the Schola theologorum, the school of Catholic theolo-gians, as having an essential role in discerning the authentic meaning ofMagisterial pronouncements, a role he elsewhere likened to that of foren-sic interpretation. All these questions are questions for the theologicalschool-and theologians will as time goes on, settle the force of the word-

ing of the dogma, just as the courts of law solve the meaning and bearingofActs of Parliament.4

Newman holds that this requirement for subsequent interpretation isso

critical, in fact, that the legitimate scope and implications ofnew

doc,trinal articulations can be fully recognized only after the passage of suffi-cient time for theological reflection and integration.

We cannot force things. The Council cannot force things - thevoice of the Schola Theologorum, of the whole Church diffusive,will in time make itself heard, and Catholic instincts and ideas willassimilate and harmonize into the credenda of Christendom, andthe living tradition of the faithful, what at present many would

impose upon us and many are startled at, as a momentous additionto the faith.

3. John Henry Newman, letter of October 20, 1869 to Mrs Helbert, in The Letters andDiaries ofJohn Henry Newman, ed. Charles S. Dessain et al. (Oxford and London, 1961-84)24:355.

4. Newman, letter of December 10, 1871 to Sir William Henry Cope, Letters and Diaries,25:447.5. Newman, Letters and Diaries, 25:284.




4/25

309

Note that, while Newman certainly grants a very elevated role to thevoice of the Schola Theologorum, its function of settling the force andthe wording of a new teaching is only a part, albeit an important and nec-

essary one, of authentic doctrinal reception. The true and ultimate crite-rion is the voice of the whole Church diffusive assimilating thatteaching into the living tradition of the faithful, such that it is effec-

tively harmonized into the credenda of Christendom.

Interpretation of the Hierarchy of Truths

Because the Council did not elaborate on its employment of hierarchyof truths beyond what is suggested by its immediate textual context, sig-nificant

questions regardingits

meaningand

interpretationsoon

emerged.Among these, the following five have proven to be particularlyimportant in subsequent theological reflection. First, where did theexpression originate and how did it come to be included in the document?

Second, how is the term hierarchy to be understood in this context?Third, what constitutes the foundation of the Christian faith to whichthe various truths are ordered, and in what manner are these truthsrelated to that foundation? Fourth, to what extent does this concept sug-gest a relativization of particular truths, such that they may be regarded as

less essential or even optional to Christian faith? Fifth, what is the theo-logical and ecumenical significance of judging certain truths to be moreor less closely connected to the foundation of Christian faith? I will

briefly address each of these questions as they have been explored by the-

ologians considering the hierarchy of truths since the time of theCouncil.

The first and most obvious issue in assessing the meaning and signifi-cance of the Councils assertion of a hierarchy of truths is establishing the

origins of this novel expression, which remain somewhat obscure. Its

remote genesis appears to have occurred in the late 1930s and early 1940s,through theological investigations of Thomas Aquinas theologicalmethod and his suggestion that there is an order to the truths of faith.

Yves Congar was prominent in this scholarship, and used very similarlocutions in his work from this period, though E. Charlier seems to havebeen the first to employ the exact phrase.

There is no doubt, however, as to how the phrase was introduced at theCouncil itself, for it did not appear in the original Schema decreti de oecu-menismo prepared by the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. The

concept was first suggested during the discussion of that draft version inthe second session of the Council, through an intervention byArchbishop Pangrazio of Gorizia:

6. For a more detailed exposition of Newmans understanding of the Schola theologorum, seeAmelia Fleming, The Role of the Theologian, Donum Veritatis and Newman, IrishTheological Quarterly 69 (2004) 263-79, esp. 277-79.7. Henn, The Hierarchy of Truths Twenty Years Later, 439 n. 3.




5/25

310

Athird remark: to arrive at a fair estimate of both the unity whichnow exists among Christians and the diversity which still remains,it seems very important to me to pay close attention to the hierar-

chical order of revealed truths which express the mystery of Christ

and those elements which make up the Church.Although all truthsrevealed by divine faith are to be believed with the same divine faithand all those elements which make up the Church must be keptwith equal fidelity, not all of them are of equal importance.

Archbishop Pangrazio proposed no concrete amendment to the text,however, and despite substantial revision the second draft considered at

the Councils third session contained no mention of a hierarchical orderamong the truths of the faith. The actual sentence affirming an ordo seuhierarchia veritatum doctrinae catholicae was only proposed by means of a

placet iuxta modum vote cast by Cardinal Koenig of Vienna, and this inser-tion (Modus 49) was approved by the Council on November 11, 1964.~Having considered something of the origin of the expression a hierar-

chy of truths, the second question concerns how hierarchy is to beunderstood in this context. Certainly that term is susceptible of multipleinterpretations. Several spatial images come to mind: linear (the high-point in a continuum), circular (the center of concentric circles), organic(the heart or kernel enlivening the whole), and structural (the basis orfoundation upon which all rests).1As a starting point in considering thisquestion, I find it useful to devote particular attention to the original text,which reads there exists an order or &dquo;hierarchy&dquo; of truths [existere ordinemseu hierarchiam veritatum]. Here hierarchia appears in inverted commas,suggesting that it is used in an imprecise or analogical sense. What ismore, it operates as a supplement to ordo, presumably intended to expand

upon or further explain that primary term. One should perhaps be reti-cent, therefore, to presume connotations of hierarchy (such as a gradedor ranked series) that might not be implied by order (which while allow-ing the former connotation, may also suggest the sense of harmonious

arrangement).Based strictly on textual grounds, then, the concept in question might

more properly have been subsequently designated the order of truthsrather than the now universally accepted hierarchy of truths. In anycase, a too narrow construal of hierarchy as suggesting degrees of either

certainty or authoritativeness, as in the Reformation distinction betweenfundamental and non-fundamental articles, have been regarded as neces-

sarily problematic. Such an interpretation would require supposing thatthe Council intended to explicitly reverse the clear teaching of Pius XI,8.Andrea Pangrazio, in Council Speeches of Vatican II, ed. H. Kung et al. (New York:Paulist, 1964) 191.9. George H. Tavard, "Hierarchia veritatum":APreliminary Investigation, TheologicalStudies 32 (1971) 279-80.10. Henn, The Hierarchy of Truths Twenty Years Later, 440.




6/25

311

in his 1928 encyclical Mortalium animos, insisting that faith requires us to

accept all the truths God has revealed.ll While it is clear the Council

intended to move far beyond the spirit of that encyclicals pronouncedcaution regarding ecumenical dialogue, it nowhere suggested that itmeant to overturn this specific principle. Rather, the hierarchy of truthsis a caution not to think, with regard to the truths taught by the Church,only of the formal element common to them all, that they are revealed,but also to bear in mind the significance of their content.&dquo;

Distinguishing between the formal and material aspects of Catholic doc-

trine, one can recognize that not all truths have the same status or valuein revelation as a whole, without thereby tending to denigrate or dispensewith those truths of a relatively lower rank.

Theologians have also noted that conceiving of the hierarchy of truthsin an organic fashion shows that doctrine to be in fundamental continu-

ity with Vatican Is Dei Filius, 13 which affirms that consideration of theconnection between the mysteries of faith is itself profitable for their illu-mination.l4 This perspective on the nexus mysteriorum, that the intelligi-bility of the revealed mysteries is most fruitfully obtained by consideringthem as a whole and in their coherent interconnectedness, precludesinterpreting the hierarchy of truths as a kind of principle of subtraction.This hierarchy does not mean that some truths pertain to faith itself lessthan others, but rather that some truths are based on others as of a higherpriority, and are illumined by them.&dquo; Thus the ordo seu hierarchia verita-tum suggests that the truths of the faith are organically and harmoniouslyarranged around a foundational centre, with more peripheral truths beingderived from and illumined by truths more closely bound to that centre.Aclosely related third question, then, is what precisely constitutes thatcentre, the foundation of the Christian faith to which individual truths

11. Pope Pius XI, Mortalium animos, n. 9 (emphasis there): Besides this, in connectionwith things which must be believed, it is nowise licit to use that distinction which somehave seen fit to introduce between those articles of faith which are fundamental and thosewhich are not fundamental, as they say, as if the former are to be accepted by all, while thelatter may be left to the free assent of the faithful: for the supernatural virtue of faith has aformal cause, namely the authority of God revealing, and this is patient of no such dis-tinction.

12. Johannes Feiner, Commentary on the Decree on Ecumenism, in Commentary on theDocuments of Vatican II, vol. 2, ed. Herbert Vorgrimler, trans. R.A. Wilson (New York:Herder and Herder, 1968) 119.13. The connection is suggested by, inter alios, Heribert Mhlen. See his Die Lehre desVaticanum II ber die "hierarchia veritatum" und ihre Bedutung fr den kumenischen Dialog,

Theologie und Glaube 57 (1966) 307.14. First Vatican Council, Dei Filius, in The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of theCatholic Church, ed. Josef Neuner and Jacques Dupuis (New York:Alba House, 2001 ) 132:Nevertheless, if reason illumined by faith inquires in an earnest, pious, and sober manner,it attains by Gods grace a certain understanding of the mysteries, which is most fruitful,both from the analogy with the objects of its natural knowledge and from the connectionof these mysteries with one another and with our ultimate end.

15. Sacred Congregation for the Clergy, General Catechetical Directory (Washington, D.C.:United States Catholic Conference, 1971) n. 43.




7/25

312

are variously ordered? The only concrete indication of what was intendedby the Council Fathers is the commentary included in Modus 49 as therationale for the inserted sentence affirming a hierarchy of truths:

It seems to be of the utmost importance for ecumenical dialoguethat both the truths about which Christians agree, as well as those

about which they disagree, should be weighed rather than enumer-ated.Although without doubt all revealed truths must be held bythe same divine faith, their significance and weight differ accordingto their connection with the history of salvation and the mystery ofChrist.l6

But Cardinal Koenigs articulation of what constitutes the fundamen-tum fidei christianae has not been universally affirmed by subsequent inter-preters, even by two members of the Secretariat for Unity commenting inthe immediate wake of the Council. Cardinal Lorenz Jaeger declared thatNo one will dispute that these doctrines [the Trinity and the Incamation]actually rank highest among all the truths of revelation.1 Yet GustaveThils contended that the very foundation of the Christian mystery con-sists in truths such as the

Spirit,the

giftsof

grace,the Eucharist.&dquo;

Most theologians, however, have continued to point in some sense tothe mystery of Christ, which Johannes Feiner was quick to insist ofcourse includes the mystery of the Trinity.19 Frederick Jelly has attemptedto integrate the views of a number of thinkers on this point, and offers asa consensus statement this careful formulation: The &dquo;foundation of the

Christian faith&dquo; is the central mystery of the triune God revealed in the

incarnate Word, our Redeemer.2An even more pronounced expressionof Trinitarian primacy has appeared in more recent Magisterial texts, suchas this statement in the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery ofChristian faith and life. It is the mystery of God in himself. It is

therefore the source of all the other mysteries of faith, the light that

enlightens them. It is the most fundamental and essential teachingin the hierarchy of the truths of faith.21

16. Cited in Tavard, 279 (translation mine, emphasis added): Maximi momenti enim esse

videtur pro dialogo oecumenico,ut tum veritates in

quibuschristiani

conveniunt,tum illae in

quibus differunt, potius ponderentur quam numerentur. Quamvis procul dubio omnes veritatesrevelatae eadem fide divina tenendae sint, momentum et "pondus" earum differt pro nexu earumcum historia salutis et mysterio Christi.17. Lorenz Jaeger,AStand on Ecumenism: The Councils Decree (London, 1965) 118.18. Gustave Thils, Le dcret sur loecumnisme du duxime Concile du Vatican (Paris, 1966)125.

19. Feiner, 119.20. Frederick Jelly, Marian Dogmas Within Vatican 11s Hierarchy of Truths, MarianStudies 27 (1976) 28.21. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana,1997 ) 234.




8/25

313

Cardinal Christoph Schnborn has defended the position that thisTrinitarian foundation is necessarily viewed in a Christocentric perspec-tive, but seems to allow for two distinct mysteries rather than conceiving

of the single mystery of Christ as encompassing the dimensions of bothTrinity and Incarnation.&dquo;The preceding considerations have already treated to some extent the

fourth question enumerated above, to what extent the hierarchy of truths

might suggest a relativization of particular doctrines as less essential oreven not required by Christian faith. Interpretations have varied on this

point, as well. Most theologians have taken the view that the organicnature of revelation and the doctrines which express it precludes dis-pensing with any particular element recognized as an integral truth in

that hierarchical order.23 But a few have speculated that a simplificationof doctrine can be accomplished by selectively eliminating those deriva-tive elements deemed to be problematic accretions.&dquo; The then Cardinal

Joseph Ratzinger opposed this latter perspective by insisting that the hier-

archy of truths points to the systematic character of Christian faith.

What the term hierarchy of truths seeks to express is that the faithof the Church is not a continually increasing sum of propositions,some of which could be put in brackets because otherwise the whole

package could become too heavy. Rather faith is an organic wholein which every individual element obtains its meaning from beingseen from within its proper place within the whole. The principle ofthe hierarchy of truths runs counter to the tendency to isolate thingsand break them up; instead it relates individual elements to the

whole, from which they take their meaning.&dquo;

Setting aside any crude version of relativization, however, thereremains a more subtle consideration applied by a number of commenta-tors. Thinkers in this group seek to recognize that a variance in the objec-tive importance of the truths of faith must also be reflected in the

22. Christoph Schnborn, Introduction to the Catechism of the CathoLic Church (SanFrancisco: Ignatius, 1994) 44 (emphasis added): The second focus in the hierarchy of truthis the mystery of Jesus Christ, true God and true Man ....23. For example, Yves Congar, On the "Hierarchia veritatum", trans. Uta Kriefall, in TheHeritage of the Early Church: Essays in Honor of G.V. Florovsky, ed. David Neiman andMargaret Schatkin (Rome: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1973) 417: To cut offand reject branches that one considers adventitious is to amputate a member organism.That branch

belongsto the whole

bya

profound logicwhich is the

very

lifeblood and full-

ness of the whole. The development of shoots is not an extrinsic operation like decoratinga Christmas tree with tangerines and toys, but it is a development which starts with thetrunk and its sap. Certainly there is the central and the peripheral, the radical and the ram-ified, but it all belongs to the tree and its life2424. For example, Waclaw Hryniewicz, La hirarchie des vrits: implications oecu-meniques dune ide chrtienne, Irenikon 51 (1978) 477.25. Joseph Ratzinger, cited in Ratzingers Defence of Draft Catechism, The Tablet (18

August 1990) 1055.




9/25

314

individual believers subjective act of faith in assenting to them. While

Archbishop Pangrazio and Cardinal Koenig had each acknowledged thatall revealed truths must be held eadem fide divina, with the same divine

faith, commentators such as Karl Rahner propose distinguishing betweenan objective and an existential hierarchy of truths.

But although Catholic faith is always an entrance into the oneChurchs understanding of the faith as something formed authorita-

tively, and is not a subjective and arbitrary selection of opinionswhich are personally agreeable, there is nevertheless a subjectiveappropriation of the hierarchy of truths which have different rela-

tionshipsto the core and to the substance of Christian faith. Indeed

this difference is far more possible within the subjective actualiza-tion of faith.&dquo;

Rahner thinks that attention to the subjective appropriation of theindividual believer, which is always guided by but never identical withthe objective structure of the hierarchy of truths, must allow for such adifference.

Yves Congar is also willing to grant that the objective content of faith

(fides quae) is relevant in some degree to the subjects act of faith (fidesqua.), noting that truth is a truth of something, and it is recognized andconfessed by somebody.27 But at the same time he insists on the primacyof the objective order of truth proclaimed by the Church, noting thatfaith is irreducibly an obedience to the authority of the revealing Godand also, therefore, to his Church gifted with the charism of truth.28 Thefull significance of allowing for this subjective/objective distinction in thehierarchy of truths has not yet been established, and this aspect illustrates

that thereremains a certain

degree of ambiguityin

the interpretation ofthis doctrine, even forty years into its theological reception.There is much greater agreement, however, conceming the last of the

five questions to be examined here, that of the ecumenical and theologi-cal significance of recognizing a hierarchy of truths in Catholic doctrine.AsArchbishop Pangrazio originally hoped, redirecting theological atten,tion toward the substantial unity that already exists on the most central

aspects of Christian faith, however defined, serves as an important con-tribution to ecumenical progress. While the initial enthusiasm concern-

ing the hierarchy of truths perhaps led some ecumenists to overestimateits potential as a direct means to achieving unity,29 subsequent theologi-cal reflection has highlighted the hierarchy of truths as providing the

26. Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith:An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity,trans. WilliamV Dych (New York: Crossroad, 1978) 383.27. Congar, 418 (emphasis there).28. Henn, The Hierarchy of TruthsAccording to Yves Congar, O.P., 247-8.29. William Henn, The Hierarchy of Truths and Christian Unity, Ephemerides-Theologicae-Lovanienses 66 (1990) 117.




10/25

315

theoretical structure for acknowledging a legitimate pluralism withinChristian belief.3 William Henn notes that diversity can be accountedfor in terms of the very normal contingencies of human knowing, con-

tingencies which,itshould

not

be forgotten, God subjected himselfto in

choosing to reveal himself in human history. If that is the case, and if rev-elation is focused enough along the lines of the doctrine of the hierarchyof truths, then it is possible to recognize a very substantial unity of faithwithout eliminating a certain amount of natural and even healthydiversity.31

Notwithstanding its value in fostering Christian unity, however, post-conciliar theological reflection has certainly not limited the significance ofthe hierarchy of truths to the realm of ecumenism. Indeed, the hierarchy

of truths has been subsequently employed in contexts never anticipatedat the time it was first proposed. Because it draws attention to the organicdevelopment of derivative or peripheral doctrines from those which areearlier or more central, it has come to be seen as a valuable principle in

interpreting the history of Christian doctrine. Because it calls for greatersensitivity to different levels or ranks of various theological convictionsand propositions, it has come to be seen as an important principle of doc-trinal hermeneutics.32 Because it contributes to the intelligibility of reve-lation as a whole, by bringing out the nexus mysteriorum, it has come to

be seen as a principle required for the adequacy of the Churchs missionin preaching and catechetics.33 But while theological reception of thehierarchy of truths has clearly expanded its significance through novel

30. See, for example, the publication issued by the Joint Working Group between theRoman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches, The Notion of Hierarchy ofTruths:An Ecumenical Interpretation (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1990). See also OttoHermann Pesch, "Hierarchy of Truths" and Ecumenical Practice, in The EcumenicalConstitution of Churches, ed. Jos Oscar Beozzo and Giuseppe Ruggieri (London: SCM,2001) 59-73.31. Henn, The Hierarchy of Truths and Christian Unity, 142.32. Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, Ecumenism in Higher Education, 16April1970, n. 5 (cited in Tavard, 280): Students should learn to distinguish between revealedtruths, which all require the same assent of faith, and theological doctrines. Hence theyshould be taught to distinguish between "the deposit of faith itself, or the truths which arecontained in our venerable doctrine," and the way they are enunciated, between the truthto be enunciated and the various ways of perceiving and more clearly illustrating it,between apostolic tradition and merely ecclesiastical traditions.Already from the time oftheir philosophical training students should be in a frame of mind to recognize that differ-ent ways of stating things in theology too are legitimate and reasonable, because of thediversity of methods or ways by which theologians understand and express divine revela-tion. Thus it is that these various theological formulae are often complementary rather

than conflicting.33. Congregation for the Clergy, General Directory for Catechesis (Washington, D.C.:United States Catholic Conference, 1997) n. 114: This message transmitted by catechet-ics has a "comprehensive hierarchical character", which constitutes a coherent and vitalsynthesis of the faith. This is organized around the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity, in aChristocentric perspective, because this is "the source of all the other mysteries of faith, the

light that enlightens them". Starting with this point, the harmony of the overall messagerequires a "hierarchy of truths", in so far as the connection between each one of these andthe foundation of the faith differs.




11/25

316

interpretations and extension into new contexts, each of these later

employments do seem consistent with the basic motivation underlying itsorigin, for they too are purposed toward a deeper awareness and a clearer

manifestation of the unfathomable riches of Christ.

Newmans Implicit Notion of the &dquo;Hierarchy of Truths

This overview of the subsequent theological reception of the hierarchyof truths, though admittedly incomplete and merely introductory, mayserve as a basis for identifying particular aspects ofNewmans thought thatsuggest a similar understanding of revelation. This second phase of the

investigation, like the first, is without any pretence of constituting a com-

prehensive study. My purpose here is simply to indicate, through attentionto select passages from Newmans works, that his view of Christian revela-tion exhibits a substantial commonality with the interpretation of the

hierarchy of truths having emerged in Catholic theology since the time ofthe Second Vatican Council. It is important to note, therefore, that I amnot attempting to demonstrate that Newmans works served as a direct or

material source for the appearance of this teaching at Vatican IJ.34But neither will I grant that Newmans general agreement with the idea

ofa

hierarchy of truths is merely coincidental, because while the Councilmay have introduced a novel expression, the concept underlying it hasbeen virtually present throughout the Christian tradition.35 Certainly theChurch Fathers, whose writings were so familiar to Newman, were fre-

quently concerned with illustrating the connections between variousChristian mysteries and the manner in which they constituted an organicwhole.And ThomasAquinas devoted a quite central emphasis to con-

sidering the order inherent in the truths of faith, distinguishing betweenobjects of faith per se and those which are only in ordine ad alia,36 and even

writing that the whole Christian faith revolves around the divinity andthe humanity of Christ .37 Given this common heritage of traditionalsources, 38 one need not suppose that the Council was following Newman

34. Neither do I, however, want to deny that Newmans works played any part in the artic-ulation of the hierarchy of truths at the Council. To do so would require supposing thatthat the formative theological developments leading up to the Council, and the thoughtof prominent periti such as Congar, Rahner, and Dumont, were not themselves influencedby Newmans thought. Such a supposition is clearly untenable.35.Anumber of commentators (Carroll, Congar, Feiner, Jelly, et al.) have noted elementsin the scriptural, patristic, and medieval tradition that provide an apt foundation for theCouncils assertion of a hierarchy of truths.36. ThomasAquinas, Summa theologiae (Ottawa: Garden City, 1941-5) II-II 1, 6 ad 1.37. Thomas Aquinas, De articulis fidei et ecclesiae sacramentis ad archiepiscopumPanormitanum, in Opuscula theologica, vol. 1, ed. Marietti, 141 (translation mine): ... totafides Christiana circa divinitatem et humanitatem Christi versatur.38. BecauseNewman makes such infrequent reference to Thomas in his works, some havebeen led to suppose that the scholastic theologians thought was almost entirely unknownto him. But although Newman was certainly less well-schooled in the medieval than thepatristic tradition, it is not the case that he had no exposure to Thomas works, for




12/25

317

directly in order to suggest that both shared a similar commitment to theidea of a hierarchy of truths.39As a means of organizing the investigation into consonant aspects ofNewmans thought, I will consider five questions

parallelto those I

posedin the first section of the essay, concerning the theological interpretationof the hierarchy of truths following Vatican II. Each of these questions has

necessarily undergone a modal adjustment, of course, to account for a sub-stitution in the object of investigation. Rather than inquiring about theactual postconciliar interpretation of the hierarchy of truths, these ques-tions are concerned with what I have alleged is Newmans implicit notionof a broadly similar concept. First, how might a concept parallel to the

hierarchy of truths have originated in Newmans thought and come to bereflected in his

writings? Second,how does he conceive of the connec-

tions between various truths in that concept (i.e., how might he under-stand the term hierarchy in this context)? Third, what might hedesignate as constituting the foundation of Christian faith to whichthese truths are ordered, and in what manner are the truths related to thatfoundation? Fourth, to what extent does his concept suggest a relativiza-tion of particular truths, such that they may be regarded as less essentialor even optional to the Christian faith? Fifth, what does he take to be thetheological and ecumenical significance of judging certain truths to bemore

or less closely connected to the foundation of Christian faith?In considering the first question, how a concept similar to the hierar-chy of truths might have originated in Newmans thought, I may seem tobe treading dangerously near an attempt to read the mind of a historicalfigure. For not only have I alleged that Newman held a position congru-ent to one explicitly emerging a century later, but now I also propose toindicate how he came to that position. While on its face this proposalmay appear to strain credulity, I do not think the answer I will suggest isin fact particularly controversial. This is because I take as an important

clue the respect to which Catholic theologians in the postconciliar periodhave come to recognize the hierarchy of truths as a principle of doctrinal

development. Though this was of course not the context of its originalenunciation by the Council, the fecundity of the concept in constructinga theoretical explanation of doctrinal development has become a signifi-cant part of its subsequent reception. Given the role that the Newmans

emerging sense of this theme played in his move from Canterbury to

Newman remarks on specific passages at places in his diaries. That is to say, having lessaquaintance should not be confused with having no acquaintance, particularly relative to

his broad patristic mastery: Compared with his profound knowledge of Scripture and theFathers his familiarity with St. ThomasAquinas and the scholastic tradition was muchmore modest. Ian Ker, Newmans Catholic Theology, in Newman the Theologian:AReader (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1990) 41.39. Newman has often been credited with having been a major influence on the teachingof Vatican II, frequently to an exaggerated degree. For a sober assessment of this question,see Nicholas Lash, Tides and Twilight: Newman since Vatican II, in Newman after aHundred Years, eds. Ian Ker andAlan G. Hill (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990) 447-64.

distribution. 2005 Irish Theological Quarterly. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorizedby Alvaro Pereira on January 26, 2008http://itq.sagepub.comDownloaded from


13/25

318

Rome, it seems plausible to suppose that his theory of doctrinal develop-ment is closely linked to his origination of a concept similar to the hier-

archy of truths.

In a famous passage of theApoLogia, Newman comments that while hewas conducting research on the history of the Monophysite controversyin the summer of 1839, for the first time a doubt came upon me of thetenableness ofAnglicanism.1 Newman had based his differentiation oftheAnglican and Roman Churches on the idea that these two haddivided between them two of the marks of the true Church.

These then were the parties in the controversy: - theAnglican ViaMedia and the popular religion of Rome.And next, as to the issue,to which the controversy between them was to be brought, it wasthis: - theAnglican disputant took his stand uponAntiquity or

Apostolicity, the Roman upon Catholicity. TheAnglican said tothe Roman: There is but One Faith, theAncient, and you have not

kept to it; the Roman retorted: There is but One Church, theCatholic, and you are out of it. TheAnglican urged: Your specialbeliefs, practices, modes of action, are nowhere inAntiquity; theRoman objected: You do not communicate with any one Churchbesides your own and its offshoots, and you have discarded princi-ples, doctrines, sacraments, and usages, which are and ever havebeen received in the East and the Wests

But now Newman was becoming increasingly alarmed that theAnglican claim toApostolicity was not as secure as he had thought. Hishistorical investigation of the issues addressed at Chalcedon had a dis-

concerting resonance in his assessment of the contemporary divisions in

Christianity. My stronghold wasAntiquity; now here, in the middle ofthe fifth

century,Ifound,

as it seemed tome,

Christendom of the six-

teenth and the nineteenth centuries reflected. I saw my face in that mir-

ror, and I was a Monophysite. The Church of the Via Media was in the

position of the Oriental communion, Rome was where she now is; andthe Protestants were the Eutychians.42

Shortly thereafter, an article in the Dublin Review on the Donatist con-

troversy becomes the occasion for a still more startling discovery.Newmans attention was drawn, by a friend, to the palmary words of St.Augustine included there, Securus judicat orbis terrarum.43 With these

words ringing in his ears, Newman is suddenly overtaken with the real-ization that the authenticity of Christian belief is not identified by strictconformity with ancient practice, but by the deliberate judgement of theuniversal Church itself.

40. John Henry Newman,Apologia pro vita sua (New York: Penguin Books, 1994) 113.41. Ibid., 107.42. Ibid., 114.43. Ibid., 115.




14/25

319

[These words] decided ecclesiastical questions on a simpler rule thanthat ofAntiquity; nay, St.Augustine was one of the prime oracles of

Antiquity; here thenAntiquity was deciding against itself. What a

lightwas

herebythrown

upon every controversyin the Church! ...

By these great words of the ancient Father, interpreting and sum-

ming up the long and varied course of ecclesiastical history, the the-

ory of the Via Media was absolutely pulverized.44

This momentous conclusion lead Newman to try to work out a theo-

retical explanation for how various doctrines and practices emergingthroughout the long and varied course of ecclesiastical history were notcorruptions of the apostolic tradition, but its authentic development.An

Essayon

the Development of Christian Doctrine is just suchan

exploratoryprobe, Newmans attempt to account for the existence in historicalChristianity of certain apparent inconsistencies and alterations in itsdoctrine and its worship.&dquo; On the one hand he excludes the possibilitythat these alterations constitute a complete change in the Church, as if it

wholly accommodates itself to historical circumstance, because it is diffi-cult to understand how such a view is compatible with the special idea ofrevealed truth.46 On the other hand, he will also disallow the solution oftheAnglican divines, who reconcile and bring into shape the exuberant

phenomena under consideration, by cutting off and casting away as cor-ruptions all usages, ways, opinions, and tenets, which have not the sanc-tion of primitive times. 41 While Newman grants that this latter

hypothesis has a certain plausibility, he finds that it cannot be consis-tently or persuasively applied in particular cases, for the dictum of Vincentof Lerins (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus) provides too crudea principle of demarcation for separating authentic doctrine from cor-

ruptions.48And so Newman seeks to propose his own solution to this difficultyperceived in historical Christianity, one which is itself another kind of viamedia between the two alternatives just described. Rather than grantingthe occurrence of complete change or denying the legitimacy of any change,Newman propounds a theory of doctrinal development that allows for con-tinuity within difference:

... from the nature of the human mind, time is necessary for the full

comprehension and perfection of great ideas; and that the highestand most wonderful truths,

thoughcommunicated to the world once

for all by inspired teachers, could not be comprehended all at once

44. Ibid., 115-6.45. John Henry Newman,An Essay on the Development of Doctrine (Notre Dame, Ind.:University of Notre Dame, 1989) 9.46. Ibid., 10.47. Ibid.

48. Ibid.




15/25

320

by the recipients, but, as being received and transmitted by mindsnot inspired and through media which were human, have requiredonly the longer time and deeper thought for their full elucidation.&dquo;

This nineteenth-century statement of the theory of development could

just as easily stand as a justification for the twentieth-century assertionthat a hierarchy of truths in Christian teaching reflects the nexus mysteri-orum. For those truths of a lower rank in the hierarchy are derived fromand illustrative of the highest and most wonderful truths that are morecentral, which because of their sublimity cannot be comprehended all atonce by their human recipients. Thus an evolving awareness of the cen-tral Christian mysteries requires longer time and deeper thought for theirfull elucidation, and results in a hierarchy of truths that itself reflects adeeper awareness and a clearer manifestation of the unfathomable richesof Christ.

It seems reasonable, therefore, to identify Newmans discovery of theinadequacy of theAnglican Via Media to which he had subscribed, andhis consequent inquiry into an altemative interpretation of doctrinal

development, as closely correlated with the origin in his mind of a con-

cept roughly consonant with the hierarchy of truths.&dquo; The Essay on

Development is also instructive in providing some indication regarding thesecond of my five questions, as to how Newman might have conceived ofthe connections between various truths in the hierarchy. For here heseeks to illustrate how all legitimate Christian teaching must be orderedto and illuminative of what he calls the originating idea of Christianity,and his characterization of that idea is such that it will necessarily resultin something akin to a hierarchy of truths.&dquo; There is no one aspect deepenough to exhaust the contents of a real idea, no one term or propositionwhich will serve to define it ...

thoughwhen an idea is

very complex,it

is allowable, for the sake of convenience, to consider its distinct aspectsas if separate ideas.&dquo;As in the hierarchy of truths, for Newman these

separate ideas are not isolated or monadic, but rather are intrinsicallyinterconnected distinct aspects of that originating idea which Vatican IIwill call the foundation of Christian faith.

Thus Newman conceives of the body of Christian doctrines as a uni-fied whole developing through a process of organic growth, much like the

49. Ibid., 29-30.50. I will further expand on this theme below, in my response to question five concerningthe theological significance Newman attached to his concept of the hierarchy of truths.51.Acaution is in order here, because the terms doctrine and truth should of course notbe too glibly conflated. Indeed, some of the most important truths of Christian faith havenever been formally defined as doctrinal propositions, though they are of course doctrinesin the sense of being represented in the Churchs teaching concerning the truths of faith.Nevertheless, I think following Newmans employment of doctrine in the Essay onDevelopment will not lead us too far astray from a parallel consideration of the truths towhich those particular doctrines point.52. Newman, Development of Doctrine, 35.




16/25

321

contemporary understanding of the hierarchy of truths. This view permitsthe appearance of apparently new teachings or beliefs in a Church livingin history without positing that such beliefs are necessarily unfaithful tothat central or foundational idea. Of that originating idea Newmanwrites:

In time it enters upon strange territory; points of controversy altertheir bearing; parties rise and fall around it; dangers and hopesappear in new relations; and old principles reappear under newforms. It changes with them in order to remain the same. In a higherworld it is otherwise, but here below to live is to change, and to be

perfect is to have changed often.53

The seven criteria or notes Newman identifies for distinguishingauthentic doctrinal developments from corruptions further suggest theconsonance of his view with the hierarchy of truths. The various beliefs

arranged in the hierarchy of truths exhibit an essential preservation of typeand a certain continuity of principles with regard to the foundation ofChristian faith, because they are all derived from and harmoniouslyordered toward that foundation. Yet the richness of the foundation is such

that its dogmas have an assimilative power for incorporating truths fromoutside its own ambit. The

hierarchymakes

explicitthe notion of a

logi-cal sequence in the history of doctrines, because it insists on the necessaryinterconnectedness of the various truths such that subsequent doctrines

depend on their doctrinal antecedents: so that, ifthe former be admitted,the latter can hardly be denied, and the latter can hardly be called a cor-

ruption without taking exception to the former.54 The beliefs in this hier-

archy exhibit an anticipation of their future because truths emerging later inhistory are by definition an unfolding of what is already extant in thefoundation, and so are the birth of something virtually new, because

latentin

whatwas

before.55 Conversely, they also displayconservative

action on their past through their preservation and illumination of thefoundation of Christian faith, such that any later addition subserves that

original truth which at first sight it does but obscure and compromise.56Finally, authentic beliefs exhibit a resilient chronic vigour such that theChurch eventually locates them in its own territoryS through assimila-tion into its system of teaching, a system which has itself come to be des-ignated as a hierarchy of truths.

It seems clear, then, that Newman regards revelation as an organic and

developing reality, and that the various doctrines pertaining to it arenecessarily interconnected and mutually-supporting. Elsewhere he char-53. Ibid., 40.54. Ibid., 383.55. Ibid., 420.56. Ibid., 423.57. Ibid., 441.




17/25

322

acterizes this organic quality of revelation as itself supplying a verificationfor the reliability of Christian doctrine: It is a great evidence of truth, inthe case of revealed teaching, that it is so consistent, that it so hangstogether, that one thing springs out of another, that each part requiresand is required by the restBut while this profound unity is to somedegree readily apparent, in language that is resonant of the connectionbetween the hierarchy of truths and the nexus mysteriorum, Newman alsothinks that a greater intelligibility of Christian truth is the fruit of prayer-ful study. The great truths of Revelation are all connected together andform a whole. Everyone can see this in a measure even at a glance, but tounderstand the full consistency and harmony of Catholic teachingrequires study and meditation.59 This same perspective, as illustrated inthe first

phaseof this

essay,is

also representativeof the

contemporaryunderstanding of the hierarchy of truths.

But how might Newman identify what Unitatis redintegratio calls thefoundation of the Catholic faith? The answer to this apparently straight-forward question may be no more simple or explicit in Newmans thoughtthan it has been seen to be in postconciliar Catholic theology. Newmanprovides a list of alternatives that others have proposed as the leadingidea of Christianity. Thus its one idea has been said by some to be therestoration of our fallen race, by others philanthropy, by others the tidingsof immortality, or the spirituality of true religious service, or the salvationof the elect, or mental liberty, or the union of the soul with God.6 He

goes on to say that If, indeed, it is only thereby meant to use one or otherof these as a central idea for convenience, in order to group others around

it ... in this sense I should myself call the Incarnation the central aspectof Christianity.61Again, somewhat later when undertaking an explica-tion of the principles of Christianity, Newman writes that For the con-venience of arrangement, I will consider the Incarnation the central truth

of the gospel, and the source whence we are to draw out its principles.This great doctrine is unequivocally announced in numberless passages ofthe New Testament .... 1 61 Certainly even the most casual reader ofNewmans Essay on Development will have recognized the frequency withwhich he returns to the Incarnation as a foundational principle. But I donot think that based upon these expressions one has license to concludethat Newman designates the doctrine of Incamation as the foundation ofthe Christian faith, and I have three reasons for taking this position.

First, note the careful, even tentative, preambles that Newman issues

prior to making each of these statements. His answer is qualified by if itis only thereby meant to use one or other of these as a central idea for

58. John Henry Newman, DiscoursesAddressed to Mixed Congregations (Notre Dame, Ind.:University of Notre Dame, 2002) 343.59. Ibid., 360.60. Newman, Development of Doctrine, 35-6.61. Ibid., 36.62. Ibid., 324.




18/25

323

convenience and for the convenience of arrangement. These suggestthat his intention in naming the Incarnation as the central aspect of

Christianity, in order to group others around it, may be limited to the

purpose of the particular exercise he has engaged in, tracing out a theoryfor legitimate doctrinal development.

Second, consider the significance of Newman naming the doctrines ofthe Incarnation when the issue at hand is precisely the development ofdoctrine. In order to illustrate that subsequent doctrines evolved out of acentral principle, he selects a single antecedent doctrine around which toorder them. But clearly Newman does not hold that any doctrine, even soelevated a one as the dogma of the Incarnation, is itself the foundation ofChristian faith. In the last of his Oxford University Sermons, he makes the

following distinction between doctrinal formulations and the real ideasthey indicate:_

Particular propositions, then, which are used to express portions ofthe great idea vouchsafed to us, can never really be confused withthe idea itself, which all such propositions taken together can but

reach, and cannot exceed ....And in matter of fact these expres-sions are never equivalent to it; we are able, indeed, to define thecreations of our own minds, for they are what we make them and

nothing else; but it were as easy to create what is real as to define it;and thus the Catholic dogmas are, after all, but symbols of a Divinefact, which far from being compassed by those very propositions,would not be exhausted, nor fathomed, by a thousand.63

This passage clearly precludes supposing that Newman regarded thedoctrine of the Incarnation as the foundation of Christian faith, for thatwould imply that he considered it not only adequate to the reality towhich it points, but even identical with that reality. Rather, I thinkNewmans use of the doctrine of Incarnation as the central principle inthe Essay on Development is limited to the context of his project there,extrapolating a coherent and historical model of doctrinal development.Thus the Incarnation functions merely as the first doctrine in a series, justas would such texts of Scripture as &dquo;Thou art Peter&dquo;.64 The Incarnation

may serve as the most fruitful of doctrinal principles, but ultimately nodoctrine can be the centre of Christianity, because only the philosopheraspires towards a divine principle; the Christian, towards a DivineAgent.65

My third and final reason for taking this view has to do with severalother passages where Newman indicates a much broader understanding ofthe centre of Christian faith. In the first of these, he explicitly makes the

63. John Henry Newman, Fifteen Sermons Preached Before the University of Oxford BetweenA.D. 1826 and 1843 (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame, 1997) 15:23.64. Newman, Development of Doctrine, 383.65. Newman, Oxford University Sermons, 2:20.




19/25

324

case that it is the historical reality of the Incamation that is the founda-tion of faith, and not its associated doctrines.

It is the Incamation of the Son of God rather than any doctrinedrawn from a partial view of Scripture (however true and momen-tous it may be) which is the article of a standing or a falling Church....And hence theApostles speeches in the book ofActs and theprimitive Creeds insist almost exclusively upon the history, not thedoctrines, of Christianity ....66

In the second passage, from the Grammar ofAssent, Newman appearsto add to the forgoing emphasis on the mystery of Christ attention also to

the whole providential activity of God, which encompasses both theorders of creation and redemption. When characterizing the impact ofChristianity on the people of England, Newman notes that above all ithas impressed upon them the series of Divine Providences in behalf ofman from his creation to his end, and, above all, the words, deeds, andsacred sufferings of Him in whom all the Providences of God centre.67

Finally, there is this passage from the Essay on Development on the ori,gins of Christianity: Now there was this cardinal distinction between

Christianity and the religions and philosophies by which itwas sur-

rounded ... that it referred all truth and revelation to one source, and that

the Supreme and Only God.68 Here Newman appears to broaden his per-spective even further, placing at the absolute centre of an ordo seu hier,archia veritatum the very mystery of God. That mystery of God comes to

be recognized and professed as Triune, as known through the mystery ofChrist the Incamate Word, who through the Spirit brings salvation tohistorical humanity. If one were to attempt a synthesis of these variousindications of what is most fundamental in Christian belief, I think one

might settle on something rather close to the formulation cited earlier asa consensus statement drawn from a number of postconciliar theologians:The &dquo;foundation of the Christian faith&dquo; is the central mystery of the tri-

une God revealed in the incarnate Word, our Redeemer.69 This is the

originating idea of Christianity that is definitively revealed but only halt-ingly penetrated by human understanding over time, and Newmans con-sciousness of the order inherent in this unfolding of revelation suggeststhat he instantiated already the theological outlook that only later came

to be called the hierarchy of truths. 7066. Ibid., 2:30.67. John Henry Newman,An Essay inAid of a Grammar ofAssent (Notre Dame, Ind.:University of Notre Dame, 1979) 63.68. Newman, Development of Doctrine, 356.69. Jelly, 28.70. In a 1948 article on the fundamental articles, Congar writes, There is a perspectiveand something of an ordering or a hierarchy in revelation.Among modems one will findthis idea expressly formulated by Newman. Cited in Henn, Hierarchy of TruthsAccordingto Yves Congar,.153.




20/25

325

The fourth question to be considered here is whether this concept in

Newmans mind lead him to the sort of relativization where some truths

might be regarding as optional to Christian faith. His conception of rev-elation as an organic whole

showingindications of vitality within the his-

torical Church would, ipso facto, seem to preclude such a possibility.Consider the sentiment Newman expresses in this lengthy quote con-

cerning two distinct theories of revelation, the one as an ancient and sta-tic set of fixed propositions, the other as a living and fertile reality.

The distinction between these two theories is broad and obvious.

The advocates of the one imply that Revelation was a single, entire,solitary act, or nearly so, introducing a certain message; whereas we,who maintain the

other,consider that Divine

teachinghas been in

fact ... various, complex, progressive, and supplemental of itself. Weconsider the Christian doctrine, when analyzed, to appear, like thehuman frame, fearfully and wonderfully made; but they think itsome one tenet or certain principles given out at one time in theirfulness, without gradual enlargement before Christs coming or elu-cidation afterwards .... They are ever hunting for a fabulous primi-tive simplicity; we repose in Catholic fulness. They seek what neverhas been found; we accept and use what even they acknowledge to

be a substance. They are driven to maintain,on

their part, that theChurchs doctrine was never pure; we say that it can never be cor-

rupt. We consider that a divine promise keeps the Church Catholicfrom doctrinal corruption; but on what promise, or on what encour-

agement, they are seeking for their visionary purity does notappear.&dquo;

1

William Henn has pointed out that this sense of the nature and legiti-macy of doctrinal development is critical to an adequate understanding of

the hierarchy of truths. A major difficulty with the concept of funda-mental articles lay in going back to some idealized, primordialChristianity to locate the fundamentals of the faith, while ignoring the

importance of the Churchs ongoing penetration into the revealed mys-tery.72 Congar cited Newman as an authority in distrusting the funda-mental articles for their inattention to the organic nature of revealed

truth, for they suggest that religious truth can be made to stand out likean object, that truth is on one side and the Church on another. NowNewman never accepted that religious truth could in this way be

abstracted from the intimate life of the Church.3This strong sense of the necessary interconnectedness of the revealed

truths precludes Newmans implicit conception of the hierarchy of truths

71. Newman, Development of Doctrine, 382.72. Henn, The Hierarchy of Truths Twenty Years Later, 458.73. Henn, Hierarchy of TruthsAccording to Yves Congar, 173.



21/25

326

from allowing for the subtraction of particular truths as unnecessary forChristian belief. For Newman consistently rejected those strong currentsof religious liberalism which operated on the assumption that religious

symbols were not only human products but also our property and play-thing, to be used, or altered, or discarded, according to our tastes and pref-erences.And against this liberalism, which knows nothing of theotherness of God or of obedience to his will (or, if it does, supposes these

things to cramp and thwart our freedom) Newman campaigned quite tire-lessly.4 Newman gives his own explanation of liberalism in a note

appended to theApologia, and here one can clearly hear how resolutelyhe opposes the idea that human reason should judge which of therevealed truths should be accepted for belief.

Now by Liberalism I mean false liberty of thought, or the exercise ofthought upon matters, in which, from the constitution of the humanmind, thought cannot be brought to any successful issue, and there-fore is out of place.Among such matters are first principles of what-ever kind; and of these the most sacred and momentous are

especially to be reckoned the truths of Revelation. Liberalism thenis the mistake of subjecting to human judgment those revealed doc-

trines which are in their nature beyond and independent of it, andof claiming to determine on intrinsic grounds the truth and value of

propositions which rest for their reception simply on the externalauthority of the Divine Word.&dquo;

But this strong language should not be interpreted as indicating thatNewman does not also recognize the possibility, and the licitness, of dif

fering subjective appropriations of that objective body of revealed truths.For Newman was a

pioneerin

formally incorporatingthe

believingsub-

ject into his theology, and the consideration of the importance of his-

toricity and of subjectivity with regard to knowing truth leads naturally tothe observation that there are many subjects and groups of subjects know-

ing truth from many different historical perspectives.76 Newman is not

primarily concerned with abstract theories of revealed truth, even warn-ing in one place that Latet dolus in generalibus (fraud is concealed in gen-eralities).&dquo; Rather, his interest is in the personal and living faith that is

inseparable from the individual experience of believing Christians.

Nicholas Lash identifies this as a characteristic trait in Newmans

thought, and adds, Surprising as it may seem, fascination with what wemay then call the &dquo;personal&dquo; and particular, a taste for induction as bothmatter and method of philosophy, is one of the strands connecting

74. Lash, 461 (emphasis there).75. Newman,Apologia, 254.76. Henn, Hierarchy of TruthsAccording to Yves Congar, 82.77. Newman, Grammar ofAssent, 223.




22/25

327

Newman and Hume and, through him and Joseph Butler, to the main tra-dition of British empiricism Of course, then, Newman recognized avariation in the way particular individuals, national populations, and cul-tures

interpretedthe truths of faith and

expressedthem in devotional

forms, because such variation was quite readily observable throughoutChristian history. But Newman had high regard for the legitimate valueof personal experience in obtaining truth, and trusted that while individ-uals or groups of Christian believers would necessarily have disparate sub-

jective appropriations of revelation faith, guided by conscience theywould tend toward that objective body of truths authentically preservedby the living Church.The fifth and final question posed above, regarding what theological sig-

nificance Newman attaches to the idea that certain truths are more or less

closely related to the foundation of Christian faith, has largely beenaddressed through the investigation thus far. For we have already seen theextent to which this concept functions with regard to his view of doctri-nal development and the changing appearance of Christian belief throughhistory. By extension, this concept allows for the hierarchy of truths to

operate as a hermeneutical principle in showing how, for example, theChurchs Marian doctrines are intimately connected to belief in theIncarnation.&dquo; But here I want to suggest that this implicit understanding

of the hierarchy of truths formed a quite central part of the theologicalview Newman developed during the period prior to his joining theChurch ofRome. In this context, the particular ecumenical significance ofhis notion of a hierarchy of revealed truths will also become evident.

Prior to examining Newmans own explanation of that significance,however, I want to set the stage by noting the special importance a con-

temporary commentator attributed to the Second Vatican Councils

profession of the hierarchy of truths.

In fact the picture of the Catholic Church as seen by non-CatholicChristians is largely determined by secondary and tertiary featuresof Catholic doctrine and practice of the veneration of the saints, orof indulgences (especially in the form which has been in use sincethe MiddleAges).Aone-sided emphasis on the formal aspects ofdoctrines in opposition to the denial that they are in fact truths ofrevelation, could help to give the impression that for the CatholicChurch all doctrines, or the realities which they express, are on thesame level, with the result that the central issue of revelation is

obscured and neglected. One should not wonder that it is difficultfor non-Catholics to see that the main issue and a proper balance

has been maintained in the doctrine and practice of the CatholicChurch if, for example, the invoking of the saints leaves little room

78. Lash, 457.79. Newman, Development of Doctrine, 415-8.



23/25

328

for prayer to God through Christ, or when Mariological literature

grows apace and fills whole libraries, while Christological and sote-riological questions are neglected.8

What is remarkable about this statement is how similar it is to the very

objections Newman theAnglican expressed conceming the teaching andpractices of the Roman Church more than a century before. To cite onlyone example:

Now it must be observed that the writings of St.Alfonso, as I knewthem by the extracts commonly made from them, prejudiced me asmuch against the Roman Church as any thing else, on account of

what was called their Mariolatry; .... Such devotional manifestationsin honour of our Lady had been my great crux as regards Catholicism.81

If attention to a hierarchy of truths in Catholic teaching can be fairlycharacterized as a vehicle for overcoming such objections, then inquiringinto how Newman overcame those same objections should lie at the heartof suggesting not only that he had an implicit notion of the hierarchy oftruths, but also that that he had a profoundly personal experience of itsecumenical and theological significance.Acritical element in this regard was Newmans discovery that theCatholic devotional practices he regarded as exaggerated need not beseen as obscuring and neglecting what is most central in revealed truth.

Moreover, it must be observed, what is very important, that greatand constant as is the devotion which the Catholic pays to the

Blessed Mary, it has a special province, and has far more connexionwith the public services and the festive aspect of Christianity, andwith certain extraordinary offices which she holds, than with whatis strictly personal and primary in religion.&dquo;

What was strictly personal and primary in religion, for Newman, wasthe personal relationship between every individual and God, solus cumsolo, and seeing that this was not impeded allowed him to take a whollydifferent view of Catholicism. Only this I know full well now, and did notknow then, that the Catholic Church allows no image of any sort, mate-rial or immaterial, no dogmatic symbol, no rite, no sacrament, no Saint,not even the Blessed

Virginherself, to come between the soul and its

Creator.83 Thus while Newman found the more flamboyant Marian devo-tion he observed in Italy personally unpalatable, he could regard thesedifferences as attributable more to divergence in taste than in belief. I sayfrankly, I do not enter into them now [as a Catholic]; I trust I do not love

80. Feiner, 118.81. Newman,Apologia, 179.82. Newman, Development of Doctrine, 428.83. Newman,Apologia, 179.




24/25

329

her the less, because I cannot enter into them. They may be fullyexplained and defended; but sentiment and taste do not run with logic:they are suitable for Italy, but they are not suitable for England. 14

The essential question, then, is what allowed Newman to come to seethat what he had formerly regarded as distorting corruptions in Catholicbeliefs and practices did not in fact obscure what is strictly personal and

primary in religion? I think he gives the answer in that section of the

Apologia where he attempts to give a retrospective account of how hecame to a change in my religious opinions.

I am not sure that I did not also at this time feel the force of another

consideration. The idea of the Blessed Virgin was as it were magni-

fied in the Church of Rome,as

time went on, - butso were

all theChristian ideas; as that of the Blessed Eucharist. The whole scene of

pale, faint, distantApostolic Christianity is seen in Rome, asthrough a telescope or magnifier. The harmony of the whole, however,is of course what it was. It is unfair then to take one Roman idea,that of the Blessed Virgin, out of what may be called its context.&dquo;

This sense of the harmony of the whole of Catholic belief, a perspec-tive fully consonant with the hierarchy of truths, is what allowedNewman to

recognizethat more

peripheralbeliefs and

practicesdo not

obscure what is most central to Christian faith, but rather point to andilluminate that foundation.And the enormous theological significance ofthis implicit notion, that an inherent order exists among the truths ofrevelation, is demonstrated by the chain of further changes in opinion hewas led to because of it. Thus I am brought to the principle of develop-ment of doctrine in the Christian Church ... and Thus I was led on [tosee] ... that the principle of development not only accounted for certainfacts, but was in itself a remarkable philosophical phenomenon, giving a

character to the whole course of Christian thought.86 And thus again Iwas led on to examine more attentively ... the concatenation of argu-ment by which the mind ascends from its first to its final religious idea ...and eventually to find an argument in favour of the identity of Romanand Primitive Christianity. 87

In his ex post reflection on the change in religious opinions that ledhim to embrace the Church of Rome, Newman identifies as criticallyimportant his implicit sense of the harmonious order existing among thetruths of revelation. He came to regard this implicit sense as the means

for overcoming his fundamental objection to particular Roman beliefsand practices, and even further, as having provided the driving forcebehind a whole sequence of additional changes in his theological outlook.

84. Ibid.85. Newman,Apologia, 180-1 (emphasis added, except in the case of magnified).86. Ibid.,181-2.87. Ibid., 182.



25/25

330..- ..L.L&dquo;-.L~..I....L ..L.L.L&dquo;&dquo;&dquo;&dquo;&dquo;~&&dquo;&dquo;&dquo;-----.I..:I- &dquo;

ITQ 2005 Ernst Jerarq Verdades en Newman

Documents

Transcript of ITQ 2005 Ernst Jerarq Verdades en Newman