Cardinal J. H. Newman and the development of doctrine (J. Joseph Overbeck)

The following is an excerpt from the book "A Plain View of the Claims of the Orthodox Catholic Church As Opposed to All Other Christian Denominations" written by Joseph Julian Overbeck in 1881:

How is it that the Roman Church, which holds the same principle as the Orthodox Church, viz., that no new new dogmas can be made, but only those contained in the Apostolic Deposit of Faith can be proclaimed or defined, has nevertheless made new dogmas? The Romans naturally deny that these dogmas are new, and maintain that they are but a development [1] of Apostolic truth, and that the Church possesses the right of developing doctrines. The Orthodox Church rejects the principle of doctrinal development, and denies that the Church ever possessed such a right. When a heresy arose, the Church simply stated the respective doctrine as deposited and taught in the various Apostolic Churches. If Willis Probyn Nevins ("Development versus Fossilised Christianity", London : Pickering, 1881, p. 30) says: "The Greek Church developed as rapidly as the Roman till the schism," we deny it. The Orthodox Church stated the doctrine disputed on the ground of the de facto deposit in the single Churches, not as an umpire in any theological questions whether they form part of the Apostolic deposit of faith or not. Hence the difference between the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the later Greneral Councils of the West. An Eastern who denied the divinity of Christ, before the Council of Nicaea had fixed it dogmatically, would have been considered as much a heretic before the Council as after it; whereas a Roman Catholic could up to 1870 deny Papal Infallibility and still be a good Catholic. Moreover, in none of the Seven Ecumenical Councils was a doctrine mooted and set aside as not yet ripe for decision, as was the case in the Council of Trent concerning the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Infallibility of the Pope. Such instances of growing into a dogma are not to be found in the Orthodox Chnrch. How the growth of these inchoative dogmas is brought about (by emphatically human means) we have shown above. If Mr. Nevins presses the heterodox teaching of some Fathers, yea, of Fathers who might have consulted the disciples of the Apostles, he will allow us to answer that even the very disciples of the Apostles, considered as individuals, were fallible men, and might have their crotchets, as well as Mr. Nevins, Cardinal Newman, and Dr. Pusey. But if, according to times and circumstances, some doctrines, though existing before, were brought out more prominently, and, as it were, as an antidote against a rising heresy, we cannot discover a trace of development in them, since no change whatever in the doctrine itself appears. 

This is the chief point of misunderstanding between the East and the West. The West develops and expands the dogmas; the East only states the dogmas, and successively, by clearer expressions, hedges out new doubts, errors, and misrepresentations, as time goes on and sects spring up. Therefore the dogmatic growth of Rome is a growth in bulk and excrescences, which is not a sign of healthy life; whereas the securing of the dogmas by the Orthodox Church shows the continuous process of an a^ive organic life within the Orthodox Church. Only blind people, who will not or cannot see this vital energy in Orthodoxy, call our Church fossilised or petrified. Fossils and petrifications cannot resist the doom of ages and crumble down in time ; but our dogmas, preserved by the Holy Ghost, the ever-living and ever-active soul of our Church, stand forth in unfading glory and power, and will stand forth long after this world has passed away. This thought has masterly been developed by Professor Rhossis in his "Report to the Holy Synod of the Hellenic Church concerning the last (1875) Union-Conference at Bonn." He says, p. 40: "The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is a living and organic body, the Head of which is Christ, and its Soul is the Holy Ghost. . . . He (the Holy Ghost) remains for ever in the Church, leads her unto all truth, and shapes the dogmas of her faith, her morals, her constitution, and her service. The Holy Ghost performs this shaping by the formative faculty, which He communicated to the Church, and in consequence of this faculty the Church appears throughout her historic [not dogmatic] development as living and organic body of Christ, sustained by the Holy Ghost — always as the same. This identity, however, does not consist in always repeating the same words, expressions, descriptions, and formulas, but in the continuous moulding of the same essential truth." 

We remember very well the time when Dr. Newman's "Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine" appeared (1845), and what impression it made on pious and learned Roman Catholics. We were living at the time in Berlin, and had frequent intercourse with the clergy of St. Hedwig and the Roman Catholic members of the different ministerial circles, pious men, who were pillars of the Church. At that time Roman Catholicism was considerably nearer Orthodoxy than it is nowadays, and the excellent men before mentioned were a worthy aftergrowth of ''the holy family" at Miinster (Overberg, Stolberg, Fiirstenberg). At first they were by Dr. Newman's book stunned as by a sudden flash of lightning. They exclaimed: ''Ingenious! beautiful! but new — unheard of in the Church! 

'Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.' 

Would this theory not land us in Protestantism? Would it not sanction the rationalistic tenet of Perfectibility of doctrine ? Would it not do away with Apostolic tradition, on which we hitherto have based our Church ? Would not the Pope, supplying history by the insidious figment of a dormant tradition, remain the only uncontrollable oracle of the Church? And why did Cardinal Wiseman refuse his approbation, or  (as Dr. Newman puts it) decline to have the book revised? Does this not look rather suspicious, as if Cardinal Wiseman was unwilling or unable to bear the responsibility for the views expressed?" Such and similar remarks were made by our friends. They did not think then that Cardinal Wiseman (excuse our calling him so by anticipation) acted wisely; for, whether the theory was right or wrong, the book was sure to bring shoals of Anglicans into the Roman Church; and thus the chief end was gained — increase of numbers! Keen-sighted Dr. Newman was perfectly right that Rome's position was untenable unless his theory was accepted. Therefore his venture was a cardinal stroke. However, it is still a mere theory. Khomyakoff describes Romanism as Rationalism in the bud, and as the true mother of Protestantism. Dr. Newman's theory is the connecting link of both the extremes, and the bridge by which the two brothers, John Henry the Ultramontane, and Francis the Unitarian, can meet. This theory is the fruit of scepticism and breeds doubt. Let us refer the reader for further information on the matter to our essays, "Cardinal J. H. Newman" (Orthod, Cath. Review, vol. viii. pp. 103-149), and "Religious Controversy" (Orthod. Cath. Review, vol. vii. pp. 72-96). Now let us hear the opinion of a man who decidedly inclines to Dr. Newman's views, and then let the reader decide for himself. W. Palmer ("Dissertations on Subjects relating to the Orthodox Communion", p. 147 seq.) says : "Recently [Dr. Newman] has attempted in an elaborate essay not only to account for the discrepancy existing between the modern Roman and the Ancient Church, but even to turn this very discrepancy itself into an argument in favour of the Roman Communion. This he does by means of a certain theory of development, according to which the Church has power not only to enlarge her definitions of the faith by the denial of new heresies, but also to expand the faith itself by the addition of fresh positive truths [The italics in the quotation are ours], the knowledge of which may have grown upon her with time from scriptural, logical, and supernatural sources, and even to contradict, it may be, on some points, the confused or erroneous conceptions of earlier ages. Thus the "Double Procession" of the Holy Spirit may have been utterly unknown; the Papal Supremacy may have existed only as a dormant seed, an undefined consciousness in the local Roman Church; the doctrine of the propriety of invoking saints or worshipping [we do not worship, but only venerate them] images, may have been the one unknown, the other denied; the dominant language on the subject of the state of the departed may have been inconsistent with the doctrine of Purgatory; and there may have been no other indulgences in existence but remissions of canonical penance ; the doctrine of Transubstantiation, so far as the distinction of substance and accidents was concerned, may have been an open question; the Unction of the Sick may have been used chiefly for the sake of their recovery; the early history of the Blessed Virgin, and the notion of her Assumption in the Body, may have been taken from apocryphal writings, and the Fathers may have supposed that she was conceived, like the rest of mankind, with original sin: and yet, with all this, the modern Roman doctrine may be on all these points, by development, the true and necessary consequence, supplement, or CORRECTION OF THE PRIMITIVE BELIEF." (P. 150): "So long as Rome seems to maintain her former antiquarian attitude towards the Eastern Church, and to dictate to her for acceptance her own modern additions or changes, either with unreasoning violence or on the untenable ground of continuous tradition, the Eastern Church may not feel herself obliged . . . to examine closely what appears as yet only as a tolerated theory or school within the Roman Communion. But a time will probably come when this theory, the consequences of which are too vast and important to allow of its being held in abeyance, will either be plainly and generally maintained or rejected and condemned." Thus the "traditional theory," which was hitherto in general use with the Romans, and is officially still so, [2] is declared by Palmer to be untenable and unable to justify the modem additions to or changes in the faith of the Roman Church. And the "development theory" is not yet authoritatively approved, and may perhaps be rejected and condemned. How is it then possible to base one's faith on such an uncertain ground? Then Palmer, supposing the theory of development to be received in the Roman Communion, addresses thus the Orthodox (p. 151) : "There has been also one very deep cause of misunderstanding, which has never yet been properly or sufficiently acknowledged ; that is, the ignorance on both sides of the principle and law of development — an ignorance which made us Latins, even if we were intrinsically in the right in what we sought to teach or to impose upon the whole Church, to be outwardly and apparently in the wrong, and you Greeks, even if you were intrinsically wrong in rejecting our Latin novelties, to be outwardly and apparently in the right; that is, according to the principle THEN [AND NOW AT THIS VERY MOMENT STILL] HELD IN COMMON ON BOTH SIDES, that every doctrine ought to be proved by explicit and continuous tradition, and that whatever could not be proved ought to he rejected." Now, as the new theory is not yet authoritatively recognised, the old principle " held in common on hgth sides " is still in vigour. And by this principle, on Palmer's own showing, the Roman Church is utterly unable to justify her novelties, additions, and changes. If the truth of the Catholic Church is such a changeable thing that what we believe to-day we have to renounce to-morrow, we easily understand why Roman Catholics who leave their Church mostly cast all positive religion to the winds. [3] Palmer says: "We now think that the principle of unchangedbleness, FORMELY HELD ON ALL SIDES, was in fact erroneous," Thus the only theory that can save Romanism is a discovery of the nineteenth century, making its appearance a thousand years too late. And every Roman Catholic may, up to now, reject this theory. If he chooses to reject it, his ground is avowedly untenable, and his allegiance to the Roman Church unreasonable and unjustifiable. But if he chooses to accept it, he has to correct the primitive belief of his Church, i.e., to acknowledge the fallibility of the Catholic Church. How can the Roman Catholic get out of this dilemma? 

[1] The word development is the charm of all modern Theology, and the mainstay of Romanism, Unitarianism, Broad-Churchism, and Rationalism generally. Mr. Nevins says: "As with the development and growth of body and mind in the creature man, so in the Christian Church there must he growth or there will be death," In this sentence there is truth and untruth mixed together. Let us consider the individual member of the Church. He certainly must grow in the faith, or he will die. However, this growth is not a bodily but a spiritual growth; it is not extensive but intensive. This necessary growth and development of faith is masterly expressed by St. Paul (Eph. iii. 14-19) : "For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, that ye may be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inward man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; to the end that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be strong to apprehend with all the saints what is the breadth, and lengthy and heighty and depth, and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye may be filled unto all the fulness of God." By this inward growth of faith "we attain . . . unto a full-grown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: that we may be no longer children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, in craftiness, after the wiles of error; but, speaking truth in love, may grow up in all things unto Him which is the Head, even Christ; from whom all the body fitly framed and knit together through that which every joint supplieth, according to the working in due measure of each several part, maketh the increase of the body unto the building up of itself in love" (Eph. iv. 13-16). This is what we Orthodox understand by the growth and lawful development of faith — a development extending through the life of the individual, and of the Church at large, into eternity. Is this no life? Is such a life fosslisation? Mr. Nevins's Church-life consists in ever-increasing bulk, in an aggregation or agglutination of a continuous mass of dogmas. Our Church-life is an organic process going on within the individual and within the Church at large, according to the injunction of St. Paul. We do not, and never did, want any new dogmas. Our Seven Ecumenical Councils were simply caused by heresies attacking our Apostolic trust, and did nothing else but oppose the old faith to the new inventions. In this way the old faith had to be secured by new words: Τριας, ὁμοούσιον, Θεοτόκος, &c., against the wiles of the heretics who abused the simple expressions of the Apostolic teaching. But though the word was new, the thing signified was as old as the Apostles. And when the Reformation brought new heresies to light, our Church was not slow in stating her belief in the μετουσίωσις, presushchestvlenie (Transubstantiation), a sign that her dogmatic life did not end with the great schism. 

All things suffer change save God the Truth; therefore our Church's belief remains unchangeably the same, because it is the revelation of God the Truth. The organs of the Church are, indeed, human channels, and as such naturally fallible, but when they co-operate in expressing the Voice of the Church, they are supernaturally infallible, according to Christ's promise. Of course all those who deny the supernatural guidance of the Church (which Mr. Nevins, however, does not deny), and simply stick to the natural growth and development of a merely human and historical institution, must here part with us. They are at liberty to disagree; but to declare a Church fossilised because, from their point of view, they cannot observe the beating of its pulse, the circulation of its blood, and the movement of its inward organic life, is certainly not wise. There are things beyond the limited horizon of the natural man, of which he has no perception, which, however, to deny would be presumptuous. When we were young the Roman Church had the same view of the matter as we, together with the Orthodox Church, have now; but what is the Roman belief at present ? 

[2] The plain teaching of the Vatican Council is as follows: — "The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of St. Peter that by His revelation they might make known new doctrines, but that by His assistance they might inviolably seek and faithfully expound the deposit of faith handed down by the Apostles" (De Eccles. iv.); and again: "The doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed like a philosophical invention, to be perfected by human ingenuity, but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Bride of Christ, to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence, also, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our holy mother the Church has once for all declared; nor is that meaning ever to be departed from under the pretext of a deeper comprehension of them" (De Fide iv.) This looks uncommonly like a rejection and condemnation of Dr. Newman's theory. 

[3] Read the 12th chapter of the 1st Book of Macchiavelli's Discorsi, and you will see how Romanism leads to infidelity. We quote from the edition 1631, issued with the Papal privilege: "We Italians owe to the Roman Church and her priests that, by their bad example, we have lost all religion and piety, and have become an unbelieving and wicked nation." And again (fol. 16); "When they began to speak as potentates, and the people discovered their falsehood, men became unbelievers." — "Come costoro cominciarono di poi a parlare a modo de' potenti, e questa falsità, si fù scoperta ne' popoli, divennero gli nomini incredoli." And a Spaniard, who has studied his country, writes in 1862 ("Preservativo contra Roma" p.14): "Among the practical observations I have made on this subject, of none I feel more confident than of the tendency of Catholicism [Romanism] towards infidelity." — "Entre las observaciones prácticas que he hecho sobre esta materia, ninguna me inspira mas confianza que la tendencia del catolicismo hácia la infidelidad." The Romans in England are able to furnish us with some remarkable instances in this respect.