Questions about John Henry Newman vis a vis Vincent de Lerins with Father Thomas G.

Guarino – Orthodox Christian Theology 3/11/22, 11:25

Orthodox Christian Theology

"Fight to the death for the truth and the Lord God will fight for you." (Sir
4:28)

CHURCH HISTORY

Questions about John Henry

Newman vis a vis Vincent de
Lerins with Father Thomas
G. Guarino

Date: August 12, 2021Author: Craig Truglia 0 Comments

Cardinal John Henry Newman, as a translator of Saint Vincent de
Lerin’s Commonitorium into English, believed himself to be
expounding upon Vincent’s view when he spoke of the idea of

https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2021/08/12/questions-about-…-newman-vis-a-vis-vincent-de-lerins-with-father-thomas-g-guarino/ Página 1 de 10
Questions about John Henry Newman vis a vis Vincent de Lerins with Father Thomas G. Guarino – Orthodox Christian Theology 3/11/22, 11:25

doctrinal development. However, his views concerning Vincent’s

understanding of doctrinal development have themselves changed
during his lifetime.

Father Thomas G. Guarino is a Roman Catholic priest, a professor

of systematic theology at Seton Hall University, South Orange,
New Jersey; and co-chair of the initiative Evangelicals and
Catholics Together. He is the author of Vincent of Lérins and the
Development of Christian Doctrine and has argued the Cardinal
Newman authentically expounds Vincent’s view. Due to his role as
an expert on Saint Vincent and his desire to communicate his
research for those interested in the connection between Vincent
and Newman, he agreed to an interview with Orthodox Christian
Theology.

During this interview, questions were asked concerning Newman’s

usage of the “rule of inference” and how Newman would use this
rule, but not in a “naked” way in which (to quote Newman) to
“extend to statements, which are mere logical conclusions from the
Articles of the Aposotolic Depositum” the level of dogma. Father
Guarino’s research has not investigated this aspect of Newman
and so it is not treated in the interview as repeated here.

What is the relevance of Cardinal Newman to Orthodox? As

discussed on this blog earlier, Newman’s thought challenges
Orthodox to take seriously Vincent’s call for “all possible
progress.” Father Dumitru Staniloae, a confessor for the faith,
provides for Orthodox a view doctrinal development and so this is
a conversation Orthodox must have.

Without further ado, here is the interview:

Is the acknowledgement of there being doctrinal development

the mainstream view of the Roman Catholic Church today? What
opposition exists, if any?

Yes, virtually all Catholic theologians would agree that there is doctrinal
development over time. By this they mean that the Church, under the
light of the Holy Spirit, comes to a fuller understanding of divine
revelation. I am aware of no opposition to this position among Catholic
theologians.

Saint Vincent de Lerins spoke that the Church should make “all
possible progress.” (Commonitorium, par 54) What does he mean
by this?

https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2021/08/12/questions-about-…-newman-vis-a-vis-vincent-de-lerins-with-father-thomas-g-guarino/ Página 2 de 10
Questions about John Henry Newman vis a vis Vincent de Lerins with Father Thomas G. Guarino – Orthodox Christian Theology 3/11/22, 11:25

St. Vincent, as you know, speaks about “progress” in the Church of

Christ in several places in his Commonitorium. As you point out,
chapter 23 is where this idea is treated in a concentrated fashion, but it
can be found throughout his work. St. Vincent wrote three years after the
conclusion of the council of Ephesus in 431 AD. He was well aware that
not everyone accepted the conciliar term, Theotokos (Mary as the
Mother of God.) But, he argued, even though this term is non-biblical, it
represents a doctrinally valid understanding of the faith. The same is true
with the term homoousios from the council of Nicaea in 325 AD. The
term itself is not found in the Bible, but it represents the truth about Jesus
Christ.

In chapter 13, St. Vincent states that he is “unfolding doctrine more

distinctly and explicitly”. He sees the Christological and Trinitarian
affirmations of the early Church as drawing out the implications of
Scripture. If we read chapter 13 carefully, we can see the kind of progress
that St. Vincent sanctions. He says, for example, that Jesus is one person,
but with two natures, human and divine. He adds that Christ’s divine
nature is “unchangeable and incapable of suffering.” And the unity of
Christ’s two natures exists from the first moment of his conception in the
womb of Mary. In these and other such statements, we see St. Vincent’s
understanding of doctrinal progress.

How would one understand Vincent’s clarification that doctrinal

development is “only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same
doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning”
(Commonitorium, par 54)?

This line, found in the first paragraph of chapter 23, is crucial for St.
Vincent. Throughout his Commonitorium, Vincent repeatedly cites St.
Paul’s admonition, “Guard the Deposit, Timothy!” (I Timothy 6.20). The
truth of the Christian faith is always uppermost in St. Vincent’s mind—
and it must be jealously guarded from errors. So, while there can be
progress and development over time, any growth must clearly protect
prior doctrinal landmarks. Later ecumenical councils, for example, must
cherish and protect the teachings of earlier ones, even if they add
something further. That is what he means when he says that development
and growth are always possible, but they must protect the anterior
tradition, “in the same sense and with the same meaning.”

St. Vincent remained concerned about various attempts to “reformulate”

the Nicene Creed without the term homoousios. He was haunted, for
example, by the synod of Ariminum (Rimini) in 359 AD where many
bishops—as Vincent says “partly by violence, partly by fraud”—
subscribed to a creed with Arian overtones. But any attempt to reverse or

https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2021/08/12/questions-about-…-newman-vis-a-vis-vincent-de-lerins-with-father-thomas-g-guarino/ Página 3 de 10
Questions about John Henry Newman vis a vis Vincent de Lerins with Father Thomas G. Guarino – Orthodox Christian Theology 3/11/22, 11:25

contravene a doctrinal landmark such as the Nicene Creed is illegitimate.

All later doctrinal statements must be congruent “in the same sense and
in the same meaning” with the earlier councils.

What main epistemic and theological problems did doctrinal

development help solve at Vincent’s time? How does this
contrast with those who Vincent considered innovators, such as
the Donatists and Nestorians?

Again, Vincent was a great defender of the council of Nicaea (with its
signature term, homoousios), and a great defender of the council of
Ephesus (with its signature term, Theotokos). He wanted to show that
these non-biblical words were proper developments—that is, they fully
protected the ancient, biblical faith of the Church. Writing four centuries
after Christ’s death, St. Vincent knew that change occurs in the Church.

But he distinguishes two kinds of change—change which is an advance

(which he calls a profectus) and change which is a corruption (which he
calls a permutatio.) The former is acceptable while the latter leads to
heresy.

St. Vincent was a strong and knowledgeable opponent of heretics. For

him, heretics are those who fail to adhere to the teachings of ecumenical
councils and, instead, follow their own idiosyncratic understanding of the
faith. For example, the Nestorians failed to adhere to the clear teaching of
the council of Ephesus. He also spends much time condemning
Pelagians for their failure to understand the priority of God’s grace,
instead relying solely on human merit. And he attacks the Donatists for
their idiosyncratic approach to the faith, abandoning the rest of
Christendom.

From an ecclesiological point of view, St. Vincent saw heretics as those

who departed from the consentient teaching of the Church. Vincent had a
high regard for consensus—regarding heretics as a small (and sometimes
even a large, such as the Donatists) portion of the Church that decides to
go its own way. He also was a great defender of ecumenical councils. The
teachings of these gatherings, composed of bishops from the entire world,
offered to the Church the true meaning of the Sacred Scriptures.

What epistemic and theological issues in the 19th century posed

challenges within the Roman Catholic Church which inspired
Cardinal John Henry Newman’s invoking of Vincent’s idea?

It is important to remember that Cardinal Newman, for the first half of

his life, was a member of the Anglican Church. As an Anglican
clergyman and patristic historian, Newman often adduced Vincent to
witness against Catholicism. How so? The early Newman was greatly

https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2021/08/12/questions-about-…-newman-vis-a-vis-vincent-de-lerins-with-father-thomas-g-guarino/ Página 4 de 10
Questions about John Henry Newman vis a vis Vincent de Lerins with Father Thomas G. Guarino – Orthodox Christian Theology 3/11/22, 11:25

enamored of what is usually called Vincent’s “canon” or “first rule”. It

reads, “In the Church catholic…we hold that faith which has been
believed everywhere, always and by all. (This is usually cited in Latin as
“semper, ubique et ab omnibus”.)

The early Newman, as with many others, was attracted to this phrase
because, on its face, it offers a clear criterion which separates Christian
truth from heresy. Truth is that which has been believed by Christians
always, everywhere and by everyone. Later teachings, therefore, are
innovations which must be opposed. So the early Newman argued that
certain teachings of the Catholic Church—such as the existence of an
intermediate state (purgatory), or the strong emphasis on Mary, or the
veneration of relics—were later innovations, not teachings believed
“always, everywhere and by everyone.”

After Newman became a Catholic, he reflected on the idea that Christian

teachings take time to mature and come to fruition. As he argues in his
Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, even the Church’s
understanding of the Holy Trinity took time to come to fruition. For
example, in 379 AD we see St. Basil the Great still arguing ardently for
the Holy Spirit as a unique Divine Person within the Trinity. In other
words, the Word of God [sic. word of God, i.e. the Scriptures, concerning
the Holy Trinity] is not understood completely and immediately. There is
growth in understanding over the course of time.

To what degree, if at all, did the intellectual milieu of the 19th

century color Newman’s thought, particularly the evolutionary
theories of Lamarck and Darwin?

I am not aware of those thinkers having any great influence on Newman.

The best I can tell is that Newman thought evolutionary theory could be
reconciled with the Christian faith.

I believe Newman’s thought on doctrinal development owed much more to

St. Vincent than to anyone else. It is often forgotten that when Newman
was only 33 years of age he translated most of the Commonitorium into
English. Vincent’s thought had a profound effect on him for his entire life.

What main crises in the Anglican Church motivated Newman’s

intellectual development and color his views?

Newman’s concern was that the Anglican Church was losing touch with
the patristic roots of Christianity. This was one reason that Newman and
his friends published a series called “Records of the Church,” which were
published along with the better-known “Tracts for the Times.” The

https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2021/08/12/questions-about-…-newman-vis-a-vis-vincent-de-lerins-with-father-thomas-g-guarino/ Página 5 de 10
Questions about John Henry Newman vis a vis Vincent de Lerins with Father Thomas G. Guarino – Orthodox Christian Theology 3/11/22, 11:25

“Records” were usually translations of texts from the Fathers of the

Church. In fact, Newman’s translation of St. Vincent’s Commonitorium
appeared in this series.

In Via Media, Newman appears to have only accepted what can

be demonstrated to have been in full existence in the early
Church. He explicitly interprets Vincent in this light. How did
Newman ultimately reinterpret Vincent?

Yes, absolutely. As with many others, the early Newman interpreted

Vincent’s “semper, ubique et ab omnibus”—from chapter two of the
Commonitorium—to mean that only those elements of the faith that
were universally accepted by Christians from the beginning are
normative for Christians today.

But in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine Newman

argues that even the doctrine of the Holy Trinity came to be understood
only gradually and over time. From that time onwards, he turned away
from his mistaken interpretation of Vincent’s canon. He started to place
more emphasis on Vincent’s claim that there is great progress in the
Church of Christ, with doctrine maturing and ripening over time.

In what way is Vincent’s view of doctrinal development

interpreted too conservatively?

St. Vincent is badly misunderstood when one takes his “canon” to mean
that there cannot be development and growth over time. This mistake has
been made by many theologians who take his “canon” in isolation from
the rest of St. Vincent’s great book.

What is the “seed theory” and how did Newman apply it?

St. Vincent uses the example of the seed and the plant as similar to the
example of the child and the adult. [Commonitorium, Par 57/Chap 23]
In both cases, there is growth—but it is growth that is organic and
homogeneous. In his Essay on Development, Newman adopted
Vincent’s biological examples to explain, at great length, how the
Church’s teaching matures and unfolds over time, under the guidance of
the Holy Spirit.

Newman makes provocative statements in his Essay, such as the

cults of the Theotokos and the saints being “additions” to the
Apostolic practices of the Church. How were statements like
these received during his time? How about now?

https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2021/08/12/questions-about-…-newman-vis-a-vis-vincent-de-lerins-with-father-thomas-g-guarino/ Página 6 de 10
Questions about John Henry Newman vis a vis Vincent de Lerins with Father Thomas G. Guarino – Orthodox Christian Theology 3/11/22, 11:25

In his Essay, Newman boldly states that the council of Ephesus

“sanctioned the Theotokos, an addition greater perhaps than any before or
since to the letter of the primitive faith” (303). He adds “This exclusive
maintenance [of the Nicene Creed] and yet extension of the Creed,
according to the exigencies of the times, is instanced in other Fathers
[besides Gregory Nazienzen, about whom he is speaking]” (303n8).

As I understand these comments, Newman is arguing that developments

necessarily occur beyond the letter of creeds. At the same time, any
development must always be harmonious with that which preceded it, in
eodem sensu eademque sententia.

It is again important to remember that Newman was trying to demolish

an understanding of St. Vincent that was widespread, although mistaken.
That is, he was trying to overcome the claim of primitivism–that the
Christian faith can only be that which was held always, everywhere and
by everyone, taken in a literal sense.

You wrote in “Tradition and Doctrinal Development” a few years

back that “adding the cultus of Mary and the saints…’illustrates
[and] protects the doctrine of our Lord’s loving kindness and
mediation.’” This made it seem to me that at the time you took
the reading, which I myself do, that Newman believed that the
saints themselves were not explicitly venerated initially and
their followings grew in time. Such a view would appear to me
to be historically defensible, of course, but radical to the rank-
and-file which would believe that the Theotokos or any other
saint has always been venerated in an explicit sense. Is there
some way to tease this idea out? Are you aware of anyone who
objected to Newman on this?

In his Essay on Development (p. 202), Newman writes that the cultus

of the saints “…illustrates [and] protects the doctrine of our Lord’s loving
kindness and mediation.”

As you know, with this comment, Newman is arguing that the veneration
of the Mother of God and the saints does not obscure the Incarnation and
Atonement, but actually highlights Christ’s salvific work. For Newman,
the veneration of the saints in the Church’s life is a matter of development
“according to the same meaning and the same judgment”—a true
advance (profectus) and not corruption (permutatio) of the faith.

Some Protestant Christians will claim that the veneration of Mary and
the saints is not found in the Sacred Scriptures, so this practice is clearly
a later innovation by the Church—and possibly a corruption of the
Gospel message. Newman was seeking to answer that charge by showing

https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2021/08/12/questions-about-…-newman-vis-a-vis-vincent-de-lerins-with-father-thomas-g-guarino/ Página 7 de 10
Questions about John Henry Newman vis a vis Vincent de Lerins with Father Thomas G. Guarino – Orthodox Christian Theology 3/11/22, 11:25

that the cultus of Mary and the saints in no way obscures the uniqueness
of Christ’s salvific work. On the contrary, he argues, God’s work through
the saints draws the mind and heart closer to Christ.

The cult of the saints grew quickly, even if this practice is not found in the
Bible itself.  For example, we have a papyrus of a prayer to
the Theotokos likely dating from the third century (“Beneath your
protection, we take refuge, O Theotokos.”)   

I am aware of no one who objected to Newman’s particular claim about

the veneration of the saints. The theological objection would be to the
entire idea of doctrinal development over time. But, as we have discussed,
Newman did not invent the notion of development. St. Vincent of Lérins
had already established this idea in the early fifth century.

In short, Cardinal Newman thought this practice was only

implicit and not explicit initially? (i.e. no one would have
initially prayed to Mary?)

Yes. It is likely that prayer to Mary and the saints was a practice that
grew over time, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. 

Newman astutely notes that Origen was accepted during his

time, but later condemned by the Church. While many observers
today view this as proof of inconsistency in the early Church,
Newman saw this as doctrinal development at work, the fruits of
Origen’s writings proving the “tree” was in fact anathema. In
your own personal view, is this sort of apologetic necessary to
maintain the integrity of the Church’s decisions or is this
Newman going too far?

I think Newman’s general point is valid, i.e., the Church is able to

discern, over time and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which
theologians possess penetrating theological insight and which conduce the
Church to error. It is a work of time for the Church to absorb new
theological points of view; the implications of certain positions are not
always seen immediately.

As you know, St. Vincent, in chapter 17 of the Commonitorium, treats

of Origen at length. Vincent observes that Origen was such an
extraordinary genius that “implicit faith was to be placed in all his
assertions.” Nonetheless, St. Vincent avers, Origen started to interpret
passages of Scripture in a novel way, departing from the tradition of the
Church. This novelty, Vincent concludes, led to Origen’s ruin. (It should
be noted, however, that Vincent was aware that Origen’s disciples had
corrupted some of his writings. Nonetheless, books published under
Origen’s name had been a great trial for the Church.)

https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2021/08/12/questions-about-…-newman-vis-a-vis-vincent-de-lerins-with-father-thomas-g-guarino/ Página 8 de 10
Questions about John Henry Newman vis a vis Vincent de Lerins with Father Thomas G. Guarino – Orthodox Christian Theology 3/11/22, 11:25

Are Newman and Vincent fully reconcilable or to what degree

are they different in their views of doctrinal development?

Yes, I think Newman and Vincent have entirely reconcilable theologies of

doctrinal development. And again, we should remember that Newman
was a careful student and translator of Vincent’s work. Both of them
understand “doctrinal development” as the homogeneous, organic growth
of the teachings of the Church. Such teachings can develop—but
development can never mean “reversal”. On the contrary, development
means growth according to the same meaning and the same judgment (in
eodem sensu). As Vincent says, and Newman repeats, true growth is a
profectus non permutatio fidei, that is, an advance not a corruption of the
faith.

In the present day, what doctrinal and moral issues does the
Roman Catholic Church face and how can Vincent and
Newman’s epistemologies help tackle these challenges? In other
words, what may “all possible progress” look like today? What
problems may arise by not applying Newman’s rule?

In my judgment, Vincent and Newman remain essential and crucial

guides for Catholicism, since the Roman Catholic Church has continued
to develop over time. St. Vincent’s doctrine of res amplificetur in se (the
thing—i.e., the teaching—grows within itself) has helped Catholicism
better understand development over time. It is no surprise, therefore,
that St. Vincent’s Commonitorium is cited in the papal teaching of 1854
defining the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

Both Newman and Vincent were convinced that anything that possesses
life possesses growth as well. But any growth must be carefully
husbanded so that it is in accord with the prior dogmatic teachings of the
Church. If I may offer a concluding thought: St. Vincent was a great
believer in the consentient unity of the entire Church. It is precisely for
this reason that he was an ardent defender of ecumenical councils—since
they represented the faith of Christians over the entire globe. Were he
alive today, Vincent would be most scandalized by the divisions that exist
within Christendom. Vincent would counsel us, I believe, to exert every
effort to achieve visible Christian unity.

BIBLE CHRISTIANITY DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT JOHN HENRY

NEWMAN THOMAS GUARINO VINCENT DE LERINS

https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2021/08/12/questions-about-…-newman-vis-a-vis-vincent-de-lerins-with-father-thomas-g-guarino/ Página 9 de 10
Questions about John Henry Newman vis a vis Vincent de Lerins with Father Thomas G. Guarino – Orthodox Christian Theology 3/11/22, 11:25

Published by Craig Truglia

View all posts by Craig Truglia

© 2022 ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

BLOG AT WORDPRESS.COM.

https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2021/08/12/questions-about-…newman-vis-a-vis-vincent-de-lerins-with-father-thomas-g-guarino/ Página 10 de 10