If you look at the index of sources cited in the Catechism of the Catholic Church you’ll see that it’s divided into several categories. The most important of these are quotations from papal documents (largely recent pontificates) and ecumenical council documents (largely Vatican II) and the writings of the Church Fathers. In addition, the writings of various saints are also cited.
Between those four sources–popes, councils, Church Fathers, and saints, you have almost all of the sources quoted in the Catechism accounted for.
But there are a few others.
For example, there are Origen, Tertullian, and Newman. John Henry Newman, that is.
Now Origen and Tertullian were almost-Church Fathers. They lived in the era of the Church Fathers and they would have been counted among their number except . . .
. . . except that Origen got a bad rep for entertaining some screwy notions, like the pre-existence of the soul (not the same as reincarnation) and the idea of apocatastasis (for those playing along at home, that’s the idea that every spirit–including demons–will eventually be saved; so there ain’t no hell, only purgatory). This got a buncha folks shouting anathema at him after his death, so no Church Father status for him! As worthy as he otherwise would have been of it.
. . . and except that Tertullian actually left the Church (!) and went to a schismatic group known as the Montanists and he didn’t get reconciled by the time he died. So no Church Father status for him, either.
And thus neither of ’em are saints, which–despite the estimable value of their writings–prevents them from being named doctors of the Church, the way such doctorates are handed out these days (it’s a saints-only club).
Yet the writings of Origen and Tertullian are so valuable that–in spite of the fact that they are non-saints, non-fathers, and non-doctors, they still get quoted in the Catechism.
That gives them something in common with Cardinal John Henry Newman (and yes, I know that folks would want to put Cardinal in front of his last name, but this is my blog. So there.). His writings are of such value that they are also quoted in the Catechism, and he’s a non-saint, non-father, non-doctor, too.
But that may not stay the case for long.
Newman will never be a Church Father because he didn’t live in the right era (pre-A.D. 750), but he may end up as a saint (assuming he made it to heaven) and, after that, he may get named a doctor of the Church. (I’d name him in a hot second if he were a saint and I were pope.)
Just recently, Newman’s cause to another step toward canonization. A small step, to be sure, but a step is a step (by definition). What happened was this: The diocesan phase of the investigation of a miracle attributed to his intercession is about to close and the results will be forwarded to Rome.
If Rome decides that the event was a miracle then the Ven. John Henry Newman could get beatified and find himself Bl. John Henry Newman. If another miracle happens, he could wake up one morning and find himself St. John Henry Newman.
And if that happens, his doctorization is almost a shoe-in.
Why?
Because Newman made a massive contribution to Catholic theology through his articulation of the concept of doctrinal development.
This is a concept that has been and will continue to be of enormous importance to Catholic theology (as well as the subject of periodic abuse by folks who want to present doctrinal mutation as doctrinal development, thus departing from the authentic version of the concept articulated by Newman).
The idea of doctrinal development in some form is something that Catholics have been aware of for centuries. It’s always been clear to theologians and historians that the writers in former ages of the Church did not articulate the Christian faith in precisely the same way as in later ones and that different questions have been dealt with in different ages, with various subjects coming into sharper focus as false articulations of these topics got identified and discarded.
But Newman helped articulate the matter in a new way that would better enable the Church to do theology in a way that would meet changing historical conditions without denying the substance of the faith that was handed down to it. He illustrated how the essentials of the faith remained the same in every age even if the articulation and exposition of these changed over time. Thus, for example, we needn’t expect the Church of the 21st century to look and sound exactly like that of the 4th, nor need we expect the Church of the 34th century to look and sound exactly like the one of today. Yet they could still be the same Church, preaching the same faith.
Newman’s articulation of this was unique in his day, and it has helped the Church greatly through the theological crises of the 20th century, which is why he gets to get quoted in the Catechism even though he’s not a pope, not a council, not a father, and not even a saint.
And why, if he made it to heaven and gets declared a saint, he’ll be on the short-list for being named a doctor of the Church. (Pius XII should also be on that list, in my opinion, and John Paul II is on it.)
Still, we gotta wait on that, so in the meantime
GET THE STORY.
READ MORE ABOUT NEWMAN.
READ NEWMAN’S ESSAY ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.
READ MORE ABOUT THE DOCTORS OF THE CHURCH.
Incidentally, as a matter of curiosity, I first encountered the idea of doctrinal development long before I was a Catholic, when I was a new Christian listening to tapes of J. Vernon McGee’s "Thru the Bible" program. Though McGee may not have had any idea who Newman was (nor did I at the time), he clearly articulated the idea that Christian doctrine progresses through the ages as various questions are taken up–settled–and then new ones are examined.
According to the history of doctrinal development that McGee articulated, the early centuries settled the doctrine of Christ (think the first six ecumenical councils), the Reformation settled the question of justification (sola fide), and the current age–McGee speculated–was settling the question of Eschatology (Dispensationalism).
Now, my friends, may I say that although McGee was a Dispensationalist and a Fundamentalist with very little affection for the Catholic Church (meaning that he was wrong about the conclusions the process of doctrinal development was reaching), the fact that he could recognize and acknowledge the process working through Church history is a significant testimony to the explanatory power and value of the concept.
I hope McGee and Newman have become good friends in heaven.
I have heard not a few people suggest that St. Maria Faustina Kowalska may be named a Doctor of the Church as well — her diary contains moving and profound insights into Divine Mercy, some of which seem to be her own and some of which are attributed to Christ Himself.
Have you heard that rumor, Jimmy? Any opinions in that regard?
There’s also the possibility that Newman could follow the Albert-the-Great-method of attaining a doctorate. After beatification, he could be ipso facto canonized by being made a Doctor of the Church (sort of like being made a monsignor when you’re only a transitional deacon, or named starting quarterback for the Packers when you’re still tossing the pigskin for Notre Dame).
It’s strange how with JPII’s revolution in canonization some people got hurried through the process while some great ones like Cardinal Newman seem to have been left behind.
Personally I think Pope Leo XIII should be a Doctor of the Church as well. But then again, I think he should be a saint, too. He often called Newman “my Cardinal Newman” –he knew he was brilliant and led by the Holy Spirit. He absolutely loved him.
Does anyone know if there’s a cause open for Leo XIII?
–Ann
It’s strange how with JPII’s revolution in canonization some people got hurried through the process while some great ones like Cardinal Newman seem to have been left behind.
Yeah, he probably should have got on the docket sooner. Oh well. At least he’s up now.
Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus
If both are in heaven Jimmy–you have the more expansive view of this
Let’s here it for an Anglican convert! As a matter of fact, I read Cardinal Newman’s Tract 90 (written prior to his conversion to the Catholic Church) while I was in the Anglican School of Theology in Dallas, TX, and it assisted me in my journey to the Catholic Church by way of the Pastoral Provision. Here is a link to the Tracts for the Times (most of which are attributed to Cardinal Newman): http://www.newmanreader.org/works/times/index.html.
Lemanski – you might check into Jimmy’s recent “hobby horse” post… enough said.
(Pius XII should also be on that list, in my opinion, and John Paul II is on it.)
Because of his Theology of the Body? I wonder if the rest of JP2’s works are really going to influence the Church in the near future. I get the feeling that much of what he wrote will be put aside and rediscovered in a few centuries.
Cardinal Newman Society
http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/
Founded in 1993, the Cardinal Newman Society is dedicated to renewing and strengthening the Catholic identity at America’s Catholic colleges and universities. The Society advocates reform in Catholic higher education, produces quality research and publications supporting the mission of Catholic educators, and assists students, faculty, administrators, alumni and others in their efforts to restore genuine Catholic identity. The Society is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt, nonprofit corporation supported by more than 20,000 individuals, businesses and foundations.
Actually, if both are in heaven, this would seem to have bearing on God’s expansiveness, not Jimmy’s.
I wonder if the rest of JP2’s works are really going to influence the Church in the near future. I get the feeling that much of what he wrote will be put aside and rediscovered in a few centuries.
Well, with the bishops he appointed, that prediction sounds reasonable.
I would nominate Dietrich von Hildebrand in a hot minute.
“Dietrich von Hildebrand is the 20th century Doctor of the Church.” -Pope Pius XII
What’s so sad about the case of Tertullian is that he was the very person who coined the term “trinity” (Trinitas) and helped pave the way to the development of the Trinitarian doctrine which has come to be a fundamental part of our Christian Faith.
The Newman society is another example of a “Catholic group” that has lost their direction. As a college student, with many Catholic friends in Universities across the country, I have experienced the Newman society’s ways on several occasions.
The Massess reek if illicitness and their theology is like some bad soup–watered down, with no meat.
For College students trying to remain Catholic, it might be best to find a nearby parish and a Baltimore Chatechism instead of your local Newman Center.
When you’ve seen one Newman Center. . . you’ve seen one Newman Center. I think each NC ought to be judged by its own merits.
Whimsy
while personally i think one needs to die in communion in order to be a doctor of the Church, i don’t see why it’s necessary that one be a saint, canonized or not, to be a doctor. newman and p12 are, hands down, doctors, whether they are saints is interesting, but it raises the perennial question, why formally canonize more clerics? can’t we learn, in major & sound way, from someone who is not formally canonized? just wondering.
yikes, just saw Kris’ post: you better distinguish carefully between Newman Center(s) and the Newman Society/ies. Big differences.
“yikes, just saw Kris’ post: you better distinguish carefully between Newman Center(s) and the Newman Society/ies. Big differences.”
Good point — although I believe Kris meant the ‘Newman Center’.
Unfortunately, I think that she might be right in her post:
“As a college student, with many Catholic friends in Universities across the country, I have experienced the Newman society’s ways on several occasions.
The Massess reek if illicitness and their theology is like some bad soup–watered down, with no meat.
For College students trying to remain Catholic, it might be best to find a nearby parish and a Baltimore Chatechism instead of your local Newman Center.”
I believe one reason (a rather poor one at that) why this might be occuring is their attempting to appeal to the young crowd in the university and some may water down the Catholic Faith just to do that in order to compete with Protestant and/or non-denominational groups in the university that possessed an even greater appeal to the younger generation because of their more modern take on Christianity and, thus, making it seem more accessible.
I remember one popular christian group in our university that incorporated break-dancing in their worship services and how that nonsense actually attracted so many young adults to attend their club functions and church.
Jimmy, Another Blessed who is quoted in the CCC is Elizabeth of the Trinity. The 100th anniversary of her entry into heaven will be celebrated on 11/9/06. Her writings are inspiring and worthwhile reading.
I apologize for not making the distinction between the Newman Center and the Society. I spoke in ignorance.
However, Esau is on target. So many of these youth/young adult groups use entertainment to attract members. The problem is, like all believers, the youth need REAL beauty to attract them and TRUTH to sustain them. Break dancing and watered down theology just don’t cut it.
I do hope this isn’t a hobby horse…
Lastly, contrary to what “Kris” suggests…I am a male. The jury is still out as to why my mother preferred K to CH.
I have always admired and held a special place for ORIGEN. What a brilliant mind and devout and devoted Believer.
It is too bad that he hasn’t been shown more grace due to the fact the the era he lived in (late 2nd / early 3rd century) was so fluid theologically… all of the doctrines that came later that we take for granted were in such a state of flux and discovery and he was one of the ones to help in this process.
But because some of his thoughts and analogical interpretation of scripture were seen to be “too out there”, he was branded a heretic soon after he died (also teachings of some of his disciples).
I think if he had lived at any other later time in Church history he would have stood out like St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas.
“However, Esau is on target. So many of these youth/young adult groups use entertainment to attract members. The problem is, like all believers, the youth need REAL beauty to attract them and TRUTH to sustain them. Break dancing and watered down theology just don’t cut it.”
Thanks Kris. I hear you. It’s almost like that at my university as well so I can empathize.
Initially, these modern spectacles may appear attractive to the youth at first, but there is hardly any substance there and in the end, are these modern takes on Christianity enough for genuine knowledge of a true Christian Faith let alone sufficient enough to maintain it?
Unfortunately, even in some Catholic Churches, there are instances were there is a certain drive to water down the Faith and modernize the worship, for example, with music that’s more so for mere entertainment than it is for true worship, to make it somehow more attractive to the youth as well, it seems, at almost any cost and try to make it all the more relevant to them somehow. But, from what I am getting from some young folks who truly care about their Christian Faith, a Mass, similar to those celebrated on EWTN on Sundays or even the Solemn Masses celebrated at papal events, can be just as attractive and, even more, especially meaningful.
Just look at the Youth Meeting in Poland that took place this year with Pope Benedict XVI. When this was aired at EWTN, it went to show how much the young people out there still cherish their Catholic Faith! It goes to show that the outlook of the Catholic Church into the future is still quite positive and hopeful — no doubt fostered in part by our beloved Pope John Paul II!
Can I suggest Sts. Benedict, Ignatius of Loyola, and Louis de Monfort?
St. Benedict founded western monasticism and is one of the co-Patrons of Europe.
St. Ignatius founded the Jesuit Order which is the largest religious order and responsible for evangelizing at least 50% of the world.
St. Louis de Montfort’s “True Devotion to Mary” has shaped Marian Theology for 300 years and will influence the Church for hundreds of years to come. It needs to be read and researched over and over again to understand the subtleties in it. I think that it would even convert James White if he really read it and studied the quotes and cross references… maybe 😉
“(I’d name him in a hot second if he were a saint and I were pope.)”
If you were pope, who would be first?
Ahhhh! Why is Michelle Arnold no longer a poster on your blog, Jimbo? Does That mean that she will just post once in a long while?
That McGeeist bit “Now my friends, may I say…” made me laugh.
How firm a foundation, ye Saints of the Lord, is laid for your faith in His excellent Word!
He had an awfully close friendship with another man, I’ve heard, and is buried with him in the same tomb. Awfully close, they say.
I’m not making fun, but doesn’t this make his life less than heroically saintly?
Yikes Jimmy, it’s only Wednesday and I can’t keep up with your posts this week. Go square dancing or something, will ya, so I can get some reading done? (just teasing)
Yikes Jimmy, it’s only Wednesday and I can’t keep up with your posts this week. Go square dancing or something, will ya, so I can get some reading done? (just teasing)
I think Jimmy’s making up for lost time with all that Moyers hoopla!
GO JIMMY ! ! ! !
I’d certainly like to see Newman canonised. Especially as I feel some ‘connection’ with him through Maryvale , which I believe he himself named, but also as a fellow convert to Catholicism.
Darn fine saint material if you ask me.
Maryvale is very dear to me and it’s not unusual to find an American or two there, either visiting Oscott and Maryvale or leading or partaking in the various courses Maryvale offers, whether B.A’s, Catechetical courses or other.
Some of the 2nd year B.A students travel from Maryland a couple of times a year, and I’ve had the pleasure of hearing many excellent american speakers such as Bill Keimig, Scott Sollom and Fr. Richard Cash to name but a few, give incredible talks there….forgive me, I get excited about Maryvale!
And you know, about you being Pope, you’d have to discern a vocation to the priesthood first….is there something you’re not telling us all…
Yours, good humouredly
“And you know, about you being Pope, you’d have to discern a vocation to the priesthood first….is there something you’re not telling us all…”
Actually, as the Chair of Peter is an elected posistion and ordination is not actually neccessary. There is hope for a Texan pope afterall…
A ‘texican’ pope would be great, but do you think Jimmy would be willing to trade in the cowboy hat?
And you know, about you being Pope, you’d have to discern a vocation to the priesthood first….is there something you’re not telling us all…
Jimmy,
You aimin’ to become a priest????
That would certainy be a blessing!
GO FR. AKIN!!!!
Hippo 354, Why would Jimmy have to trade in the cowboy hat if he were elected pope? Who could tell him he couldn’t wear it?
Just like the novel dressing habits of past Popes (like that Dominican one) have had a lasting impact on the dress of the Popes, Pope Jimmy I may initiate a centuries-long Papal custom of wearing a cowboy hat and boots.
Kris,
I believe that is the case indeed. However, though (almost) any baptised male Catholic could be elected pope, it’s highly unlikely that a member of the laity would be elected pope, isn’t it? Hence my comment, which wasn’t intended to be a statement of Catholic teaching, just a lighthearted quip 🙂