(Before I comment on the book (New York: Image Books, 1992 -- ISBN 0385422806), I want to make a few brief background comments. I came across this book in a used bookstore in Berkeley, CA) in early 1993. At the time I was undergoing a serious spiritual crisis, etc. and this book was just what I needed to read at the time. Looking back, this book was really the catalyst for a spiritual journey that led me out of Protestantism into full communion with the Bishop of Rome as an Eastern/Orthodox Christian. I had forgotten about the book until I found it in an unopened box from my last move. Talk about finding a long-lost friend :D)

John Henry Cardinal Newman was a convert to the Roman Catholic Church from Anglicanism. As a member of the Tractarian Movement, he came to the Church through a long study of the Church Fathers. This book contains a collection of his writings, beginning with his initial homily in 1843 in which he charted his perspective on the development of doctrine within the historic Church based on his interpretation of the Lukan reference to Mary: "she pondered these things in her heart". As he explained, "St. Mary is our pattern of Faith, both in the reception and in the study of Divine Truth. She does not think it enough to accept, she dwells upon it; not enough to possess, she uses it; not enough to assent, she develops it; not enough to submit the Reason, she reasons upon it; not indeed reasoning first and believing afterwards, with Zacharias, yet first believing without reasoning, next from love and reverence, reasoning after believing. And thus she symbolizes to us, not only the faith of the unlearned, but of the doctors of the Church also, who have to investigate, and weigh, and define, as well as to profess the Gospel; to draw the line between truth and heresy; to anticipate or remedy the various aberrations of wrong reason; to combat pride and recklessness with their own arms; and thus to triumph over the sophist and the innovator" (6-7).

Arguing against the Protestant hermeneutic that insists that if it is not explictly stated in Scripture than it is wrong, Newman states, "the Scripture statements are sanctions as well as informants in the inquiry; they begin but do not end" (20). And arguing against his fellow Tractarians that if it is not found in the early Church fathers it is unacceptable, Newman argues instead that "the absence, or partial absence of, or incompleteness of dogmatic statments is no proof of the absence of impressions or implicit judgments, in the mind of the Church. Even centuries might pass without the formal expression of a truth, which had been all along in the secret life of millions of faithful souls" (12).

In other words, just as the New Testament unveils that which is hidden in the Old, the Church as she makes her way through time continues to reveal what is hidden in the New -- "The question, then, is not whether this or that proposition of the Catholic doctrine is in terminis in Scripture, unless we would be slaves to the letter, but whether that one view of the Mystery, of which all such are the exponents, be not there; a view which would be some other view, and not itself, if any one of such propositions, if any one of anumber of similar propositions, were not true. These propositions imply each other, as being parts of one whole; so that to deny one is to deny all, and to invalidate one is to deface and destroy the view itself. One thing alone has to be impressed upon us by Scripture, the Catholic idea, and in it they are all included" (20).

For Newman, the case in point of his theory was the developing/evolving doctrine of the Papacy in Church history. This is where he and most of his fellow Tractarians departed company. But I do believe that his theory is one which warrants discussion today. For example, what about his point that doctrine develops either as the faithful meditate upon it (like the Virgin Mary) or in response to heresies--"No one doctrine can be named which starts complete at first and gains nothing afterwards from the investigations of faith and the attacks of heresy" (95-96).

I should note that Newman is not a theological liberal (the word is anachronistic to Newman's time anyway) and certainly if you read the book, you will see that he is very clear on what he means and does not mean AND he certainly does not mean that every development is good. He lays down clear guidelines to follow to determine which development is authentic and which is not.

I think the following quotes (my favorites) are interesting and could be profitably discussed:

"Scripture cannot, as it were, be mapped, or its contents catalogued; but after all our diligence, to the end of our lives and to the end of the Church, it must be an unexplored and unsubdued land, with heights and valleys, forests and streams, on the right and left of our path, and close about us, full of concealed wonders and choice treasures" (98).

"Of no doctrine whatever, which does not actually contradict what has been delivered, can it be peremptorily asserted that it is not in Scripture" (98).

"No doctrine is defined until it is violated" (158).

(Regarding doctrinal development): "There is no corruption if it retains one and the same type, the same principles, the same organization; if its beginnings anticipate its subsequent phases, and its later phenomena protect and subserve its early; if it has a power of assimilation and revival, and a vigorous action from first to last" (174-75).

"One cause of corruption in religion is the refusal to follow the course of doctrine as it moves on, and an obstinacy in the notions of the past" (179).

"The Church of Rome can consult expedience more freely than other bodies, as trusting to her living tradition, and is sometimes thought to disregard principle and scruple when she is but dispensing with forms" (188).

"The Holy Apostles would without word know all the truths concerning the high doctrines of theology, which controversialists after them have piously and charitably reduced to formulae, and developed through arguments" (190).

I also found this comment to be interesting and enlightening in light of other posts on this Forum about the New Liturgy's promulgation. As he is arguing, against the Protestants, for the role of the Papacy as the ultimate authority in matters of doctrine, Newman asserts: "Obedience to conscience, even supposing conscience ill-informed, tends to the improvement of our moral nature, and ultimately to our knowledge, so obedience to our ecclesiastical superior may subserve our growth in illumination and sanctity, even though he should command what is extreme or inexpedient, or teach which is external to his legitimate province" (110).

This statement is also interesting: "Of all existing systems, the present communion of Rome is the nearest approximation in fact to the Church of the Fathers, possibly though some may think it, to be nearer still to that Church on paper. Did St. Athanasius or St. Ambrose come suddenly to lfe, it cannot be doubted what communion he would take to be his own" (117).

Obedience works in all directions.

We are called to be obedient to our bishops as our bishops are called to be obedient to the Church.

Sensus fidelium sits right beside obedience.

Look at the history of our Church. Each generation has submitted to our bishops in obedience when they Latinized us.

Are we to submit to our bishops in obedience as they Latinize us even more?

Do we not have the right to appeal to others in the Church (the pope, the patriarch, other bishops and other faithful)?

Should we not ask them to take stock of what our bishops are doing?

Should we not ask them to correct our bishops according to fraternal brotherhood?