The end of the calendar year is a useful prompt to reflection. On the parochial level of this blog, it has been a year which has seen huge changes: illness and then vocation, have pulled Jessica away, whilst circumstances have done the same with Geoffrey Sales, who for so long has been our mainstay here: this seems a suitable opportunity to thank both of them on our behalf – and I think and hope that with Geoffrey, there is a chance we shall see him here again. Then there was the blog going private, thanks to that strange modern liberal trait which appears to regard disagreement with its tenets as a cause of personal offence, which again, changed the dynamics. But AATW has survived and I am happy to continue its mission, which is to encourage dialogue between Christians of all denominations and none. This was why Jessica founded it, and it is in that spirit it will continue.
One of the reasons Newman so favoured the free interplay of ideas, was that he was convinced that it was the only way in which orthodoxy could be established. Steeped as he was in the patristic sources, he was more aware than most of the dangers attending on attempts to suppress free discussion. His great hero, Athanasius, went into exile many times, and was saved only by the Grace of God, all because he insisted on the Nicene truths at a time when reasons of State had made them inconvenient to a majority of Bishops. Accused, many times, of heresy, had his opponents been able to lay their hand on him, they would have had him executed; when the boot was on the other foot, in his later and more settled years, Athanasius did not return evil for evil.
Ideas, Newman knew, cannot be uninvented, and the attempt to suppress them makes martyrs, and martyrs make causes. Newman himself suffered in his own lifetime, both as an Anglican, and a Catholic, from the machinations of those in power who did not like what he had to say and sought to suppress it. Anglican bishops of a certain ilk did not like being reminded of the Catholic heritage of their Church, and how much of it could be rediscovered; Catholic bishops of almost every hue, did not like being told that the faithful were good for more than filling the pews and paying the bills; but Newman insisted on these things.
By ‘insist’, I do not mean that he led a campaign (although as an Anglican he did help inspire a movement whose life continue long after his own conversion), but rather than he put his ideas forward insistently. Newman was a great polemicist, but one who believed that it was through the free interplay of ideas that truth could be found. He refused to believe that one side had the whole of the right on its side, even though, as a Catholic, he did believe that the fullness of the Faith was to be found there – even if some Bishops appeared so taken by the fashions of the day that they had forgotten their own history.
Newman disliked persecution, not just because he was a victim of it, but because it got in the way of truth. Had Athanasius been executed, had the semi-Arians prevailed, then the world would indeed have been heretical. That did not happen, and Newman’s belief in the Holy Spirit was somewhat greater than that of those who applied so ardently to assist it by closing the mouths of those with whom they disagreed. He recognised the temptation to mistake one’s own views for those of the Spirit, not least in the Church founded upon the faith of Peter; Peter had been most fallible at times, how could his successors not be? The miracle was that despite their best efforts, Catholics had not destroyed the Church; Christ’s promise stood and would, Newman believed, stand until the ending of the age.
He was not, as we have seen, and will see, blind to the dangers inherent in his idea of the developing understanding of doctrine, and indeed, provided tests to help us see what was genuine and what was not. But he knew the Church was the living Body of Christ, and all living things develop; if they do not, they are dead. The Church of Christ is not a museum piece, it exists for the saving of souls, and for that work, and it alone, was it founded and continues to exist.
Amen and amen to all you say here, both on our parochial interests as well as what you and Newman say about the free interplay of ideas.
How often have we all been asked why certain people on still allowed to post here? Here is that reason spelled out, first by Jessica and now by you, using Newman’s words as he intended them.
So often I am reminded that in religion, as in politics, the truth stands on its own, and doesn’t need false defenses. If one ned the power of the state (or the church), or any other deception, to win the argument, one needs to check their premises, because they are flawed.
LikeLike
Thank you, Neo. I felt it needed to be spelled out. Like Jess, I am not going to become a censor. Where there is cause, yes, that is where someone is likely to post profanities or troll, then that has no part in dialogue; but for the rest, Truth wins, and it doesn’t need our permissions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I did as well, sometimes it is infuriating, and many don’t understand but, free interplay of ideas means all ideas, even the silly ones. And sometime we see results. 🙂
LikeLike
I can understand, as you can, the frustrations, and, as I said before, there are limits – those who abuse free speech here can go exercise their bad language elsewhere. But that said, who would want to live where their freedom of speech was directly impeded? By the immigration stats, not many.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is a reason, and a good one, why the US and UK (and others like us) have immigration problems, and in truth, we both always have, just as we always have been multicultural (in the good sense of the word) societies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We might do well in meditating on his life and asking for the prayers of this blessed man.
LikeLike
Indeed. Blessed John Henry Newman, pray for us.
LikeLike
It is indeed a point of contention between man that we argue our ideas. It is pointed out that the Church (known as Catholic) has too many defined doctrines, though the doctrines themselves were rarely constructs that were simply codified without prior argument of differing ideas. Doctrine is made because and argument has made clear that there is a truth and that there is an error as opposite truths cannot both be right. So within the Church the members are subject to decided truths and there seems no reason to re-argue that which was won by the triumph of truth.
It is true that these same arguments are never put soundly to rest and that perhaps a new a more novel way of arguing the opposing and losing proposition will find its way in the public debate. Invectives are not argument and can easily be dismissed. But a new approach to the debate may shed light on the truths that were already decided. It is like adding footnotes to a manuscript in such an instance which is quite different from the violence of tearing up a decided truth and replacing it with a new one. So for those who hope for the latter, that is not the point for serious and respectful argument.
We have, and will, I suspect, continue to refine our doctrine by this means and the footnotes will multiply in time but they will not declare the manuscript that is being grown into a more universal and all encompassing truth that addresses better arguments that perhaps the first arguments which were fought and lost in the past.
Both parties, hopefully, will find the sanity and the benefit of constantly refining the gold of doctrine which is always in need of being purified even more.
Sadly, there are argument that do come about that have not that objective at all: they seem to think that the truth needs to move towards the error or shall we call it the corruption of a truth.
I would hope that as Christians we are together in the hope of improving what went before rather than to abandon the tradition and start anew. Are we not asked to love the good and to despise the evil – which is not to say that we despise those who do evil, for we all are guilty. But we do which to make truth and untruths recognizable so that people are not led astray but find some life raft to cling to while we battle the world, the flesh and the devil.
LikeLike
One of Newman’s tests is whether the development is in accordance with tradition.
What he (and I) have in mind here is something like the attempts by the semi-Arians to get agreement to a compromise Creed. Had Athanasius been silenced because he dissented from the consensus, the consequences make one shudder to consider; but the Spirit ruled otherwise 🙂
LikeLike
Indeed so and it is aways good to see the Holy Spirit refine the Church, either by a seal of approval or by a renouncement of an error.
LikeLike
Newman believed that across time, even the effects of Councils could be beneficial. He thought a century usually did it! So we shan’t live to see this with regard to Vatican II. But we can have the same faith 🙂
LikeLike
Well, for me, in regards to much of it, that is all I can do but have faith. The way things look and stand today it almost looks unworkable and much seems to be even paradoxical. Perhaps a reform of the reform and a counter-revolution led by the Holy Spirit will balance the imbalance seen today. I guess that is why we need the 3 theological virtues in abundance. 🙂
LikeLike
It is indeed. Like Newman, we have to believe Jesus meant what he said about the gates of hell 🙂
LikeLike
Amen to that, C. Jesus does not speak some cloudy truth that is lost in the fog but speaks only truths that we all can cling to. When we are in a Barque in turbulent seas near a craggy coast it is always heartening to know that Christ is the Lighthouse that will guide us and prevent our Church from running aground.
LikeLike
It is indeed. The Church has always been careful to define what must be believed, and sometimes that has come after intense and prolonged discussion – as with the Trinity.
LikeLike
It certainly has.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think you might find the following article of interest if you have not already read it: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/12/vittorio-messori-doubts-on-twists-and.html#more
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you – yes, another friend had just directed me to it; most interesting.
LikeLike
Seemed compatible with your post.
LikeLike
Yes, I think so. Too easy to take MSM’s misreading for the truth 😀
LikeLike
Aye. Its confusing out there. Land mines lie almost everywhere you step. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person