The Doctor of Development (Guest: Eduardo Echeverria)

[00:00:10] Speaker A: Saint John Henry Newman is about to be declared a Doctor of the Church. And the Vatican has said, quote, because of his decisive contribution to the renewal of theology and to understanding Christian doctrine in its development. Today we're going to talk about honest feast day. We're going to talk about John Henry Newman and development of doctrine, what it means, what it doesn't mean, how it's used, how it's abused, all the things related to that. We have with us Dr. Eduardo Echeverria, who's formerly from Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit, Michigan. And before we get started on Newman, I just, I think our audience probably wants to know, what are you up to these days now that you're not at Sacred Heart? What kind of time? [00:00:53] Speaker B: I've been working on a three volume book which is really just a collection properly integrated into each volume, but a collection of writings that I've had for some 20 years. I, I always quote Carl Rahner in volume one of the theological Investigation says in the preface that, you know, there are so many journals these days. So he didn't think anybody was reading his writings, you see, so he thought, let me take a chance of collecting them in a book and let's see, let me, let me disinter them, he said. And, and let's see if people will, will read, will read the, will read them now. So the, the, the, the book itself is called Creation Redeemed. And volume one actually came out a couple of maybe two or three months ago. It's called Redeeming Sex, the Battle for the Body. [00:02:01] Speaker C: Okay. [00:02:01] Speaker B: That was volume one. Volume two has two parts. Because it was just too many essays, my publishers had to put in one volume. And that's on Redeeming Reason, the Battle for Faith, Rationality and Truth. And volume two, part one is just about to come out and I'm working on part two of volume two. And then volume three is going to be entitled Redeeming Culture, the Battle for, you know, for Christ, the transformer of Culture. Okay. And so I got, I have, even though I'm not teaching as such, I got, I have plenty of work to do, plenty of stuff to engage my attention. That's good. Yeah, that's what I'm doing. It's all about creation, fall and redemption. [00:02:58] Speaker A: That's awesome. Yeah, I'm looking forward to that. So you said the first flame's already out? [00:03:02] Speaker B: It's already out. It's called Redeeming Sex, the Battle for the Body. [00:03:06] Speaker A: Okay. Okay. [00:03:07] Speaker B: And it's on Amazon. It's published by Enroute Media, Enroute media. Enroute books and media. He's, I don't know, you know, what's his name? Sebastian Mahfoud? [00:03:21] Speaker A: I don't think so. [00:03:22] Speaker B: He's the publisher and he's, he's out of St. Louis, Missouri. But you, you know, your audience can go to Amazon.com and look under my name. And then Redeeming Sex, the Battle for the Body. And one of the good things about him is that even though the book can be even three, 300 pages, 400 pages, it's, it's at a reasonable price. It's like $32. [00:03:51] Speaker A: Okay, good. [00:03:51] Speaker B: It's not, it's not like some of my other books, you know, which can be, you know, $120. [00:04:00] Speaker A: There's academic books. They just. [00:04:01] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. When I published a book many years ago, 13 in 2013, it was Brill Publisher, which is a, a famous Dutch publisher on, on the, the Theology and of, of the Great Berkauer. And that book cost $250. So it was an academic book. You could, yeah, right, right. You could buy it for the library. You could buy individual chapters. But anyway, so he's got good, it's a, can be, it could be a good size book and it could be very, very reasonable rate. $32 is a very reasonable rate, right? [00:04:47] Speaker A: Yeah, absolutely. Definitely. So. Okay. Well, let's jump into Newman, who is one of my favorite saints. I actually have orchard right here out of, out of screenshot. But I can see him right now. He's watching over us in more ways than one. [00:05:00] Speaker B: Praise the Lord. Exactly. [00:05:01] Speaker A: And I have a whole bookshelf over here that's on this side that's got a bunch of, bunch of Newman work. So I really do love him. I was very happy to have you on to talk about particularly his views on development doctrine. Of course, that's what he's famous for. And that's why the Vatican says, the Pope says that they're naming him a doctor of the Church. So before we just dive into development, why don't you just, I think most people know the basics of Newman, but why don't you give us a little bit of a biography of him and kind of why he matters for us today? [00:05:31] Speaker B: Well, I think one of the reasons he matters is that Newman was just a prolific writer, but he was an Anglican. He went through a period. Father Ian Kerr, the late Father Ian Kerr, wrote a book on Newman's development, as it were, from evangelical Protestantism to Anglicanism. And then finally he came into full Communion with the church in 1840. And you know, the Oxford, Oxford sermons. Great, I always say, no sermons that we've ever heard. These were just brilliant, you know, intense lectures and parochial and plain sermons. He wrote a great deal. But this, the book. And then of course, an essay in aid of a Grammar of Ascent, which is his Theory of Knowledge, where he's trying to provide an account of why, quote, unquote, the unsophisticated. The unsophisticated Christian, someone who's not engaged in reviewing arguments for God's existence and so on can actually still be rational and justified in believing in God. And that's the thrust of An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Sin. And then of course, you have the book, excuse me, on Development, on An Essay on Development of Christian Doctrine. And that book was important because he started writing that book because he wanted to, of course, make the distinction between true and false doctrinal development. Development that was genuine from development that was corrupt. And he came to the conclusion after writing that book because he was sort of responding to critics of Catholicism not yet having come into the Church. He sought to show that, you know, Catholic teaching, not just Nicene orthodoxy, no, that wasn't the issue. But what is specifically Catholic regarding the sacraments, regarding Mary and Marian dogma and so on, that these, that these were not additions and they certainly weren't corrupt matters. You know, they were a matter of development here from. And so in that book he provides us with certain. In the first edition, he called it tests to see when development was actually genuine from development that was corrupt. And those tests, there were seven of them. One of them was called. The first was called identity of type. And that's, that's simple to understand. You know, if you. Identity of type means what, for instance, what's the nature of marriage? You know, these. Marriage has a nature. Now we've of course, drifted away from that in our culture. Marriage doesn't have a nature. Marriage is whatever two people make it to be. But in any case, he, he of course rightly understood their marriage has a nature. And then there's the second is called. The second test, as it were, was called continuity of principle. I'll come back and explain that. And then he has assimilative power. So the, the, the, the, the, the, the. The principle itself. Let's say, for instance, if we take Jesus in, in the Gospel of Mark, Mark 10, where he's asked about marriage and, and Jesus refers us back to the. Of Genesis 1:27, God created man in his image male and Female, he created them or him. Therefore a man shall leave his mother and his father and cleave unto his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So marriage is about permanence. It's about twoness, male and female twoness, that's what. And the two. Which two? Well, we know it refers back to Genesis 1:27 and then thirdly also, and this is fundamentally, I think, crucial, that is that sexual difference is a fundamental prerequisite for the two to become one flesh. So you have assimilate of power. You know, there's John Paul, just come back to Newman, but there's John Paul in the Theology of the Body. He understood that in part two of the Theology of the Body where he's discussing, remember, the theology of the body is all about anthropology, Christian anthropology, and it's about sexual difference and, and how it's grounded in the body. And, and there John Paul argues, he tells us what the nature of the sacrament is as such, and then tells us that that marriage presupposes sexual difference as a fundamental prerequisite for the two to become one flesh. John Paul understands, and this goes back to Newman, that there's an assimilative power, the understanding. I mean, we always knew that marriage presupposed sexual difference, but now it's, you know, I mean, now we see the fundamental importance of that to bring that out. I always would tell my students, marriage is not about love. Yes, love is the integrating principle of the ethical or covenantal community that is marriage. But marriage can't be separated from sexual difference. You see, we live in a culture where if you just say that marriage is about love, somebody's going to say, well, why can't two men or two women be married? So you have to bring out the significance of sexual differentiation, bodily sexual differentiation. And so the, as it were, the. I use the term from the dogmatic, conceptual, hardcore, the propositional revelation, as it were, that Jesus gives us in Mark and in Matthew about marriage. Well, that principle, it's a propositional revelation. So it's in that sense unchanging, but it also has assimilative power because over time we've now seen the significance of that as we talk about sexual difference. And why, why, you know, same sex marriage, why is, is, is fundamentally corruption. You know, I mean, I remember how many, you know, the, the, the German episcopacy, you know, Cardinal Marx and so on, they would talk about, they would suggest that somehow same sex marriage was just a development of, of conjugal marriage. But no, it can't be if the dogmatic, conceptual, hardcore, if the, to use Newman terms, if the identity of type that marriage is, and the continuity of principle, the continuity of principle is such that it's unchanging. And so you have to. And you know, here's another. The fecundity of that of marriage. That's another principle of Newman, fecundity, conservation. Newman says a true development is that which is conservative of its original and a corruption is that which tends to its destruction. Well, same sex marriage is a destruction of marriage. There's no way to think that two men can be married, that the church will ever justify two men or two women being married. So what Newman refer. [00:14:16] Speaker A: I'm sorry, I was going to say. So with the development then, as Newman sees, seems like there's two aspects to it. In one sense, something is changing, something is, but something else is unchanging. [00:14:29] Speaker B: Right. [00:14:29] Speaker A: So how does the Catholic, using kind of Newman's way of looking at development, how does, how does he distinguish? So when a, you know, a somebody like a German bishop or something kind of suggests that same sex marriage is a development. [00:14:45] Speaker B: Right. [00:14:46] Speaker A: Or something like that, or to use one that's kind of in the news recently about the death penalty, is it, is it now intrinsically immoral or anything like that? You know, these issues, how can we then kind of distinguish, okay, what is unchanging and what is allowed to be changed? Where do we look? [00:15:05] Speaker B: Right. So in addition to Newman's tests, identity of type, marriage, nature of marriage is such that it's grounded in the order of creation. You know, the catechism makes very clear when it's talking about the sacrament of marriage. It begins by grounding marriage in the order of creation. The sacrament only begins, it only discusses the sacrament as such, as the sacrament of redemption, because the sacrament is there to renew, to redeem and so on. Continuity of principle, assimilative type, logical coherence, fecundity, conservation and vitality. So the traditional view of marriage has a certain vitality to it, but they're necessary, but they're not sufficient. So then I use a term that Father Monsignor Guarino, Thomas Guarino, who's written a few books on Newman and on Vincent of Lorenz, because I'll say something more about Vincent later. Newman was influenced by Vincent, the 5th century monk and Father Guarino calls these ecclesial warrants. So we need, for instance, to assess doctrinal development, which is what you're asking, warrants such as sacred scripture. It has primacy. It has primacy, Ecumenical Councils, doctors of the Church, the Christian faithful, and the magisterium. So all of those are going to be warrants that we appeal to. Experience is not a warrant. Experience is not a warrant. Experience is not a source of revelation. Not even the Pope is a source of revelation. All these tests and attendant warrants help us to distinguish development from change. Vincent de Lorenz, in his Comunitore, which Newman was influenced by, he distinguishes development from change. Change is when one thing becomes something else. Development is organic. Development involves proper growth and understanding. It may involve correction, it may involve modification and complementary formulations. But we distinguish development from improper mutations and corruptions. So same sex marriage would be an improper mutation and corruption. It's unbiblical. There's nowhere in the Bible, if you take, if one takes the Bible as the Church does, as, you know, an authoritative source of truth, there's nowhere in the Bible that you can find, you know, homosexuality being justified. And certainly Jesus himself, in Mark 10, he refers us back to the creation text because marriage is grounded in the order of creation. That man is a, you know, male and female is grounded in the order of creation. Here's another thing fundamental to doctrinal development is the idea of propositional revelation. Newman held that revealed truths, and here I'm quoting him, what he called supernatural truths of dogma have been here again, he says, irrevocably committed to human language. God's written revelation, according to Ian Kerr's reading of Newman, necessarily involves propositional revelation. And this propositional revelation in verbalized form, or what Newman called the dogmatical principle, is at once true, though not exhaustive. I mean, in other words, the Bible doesn't tell you everything you want to know about marriage, right? But it tells you what's most fundamentally true about marriage. Huh? Like I said, everybody, the church, excuse. [00:19:18] Speaker C: Me. [00:19:23] Speaker B: I would say that it's only up to when we get to John Paul II's theology of the body that he makes explicit what was already known to be the case. What was already known implicitly, and that is that marriage is the two, one flesh union of a man and a woman. So it's a bodily. When John Paul says, when the man says, I take you as my wife, and the woman says, I take you as my husband, those statements have to correspond to bodily sexual differentiation. And so that's why it makes no sense for a woman to talk about another woman as her wife or a man to talk about another man as his husband. So this dogmatical principle, as I said, is at once true, though not exhaustive imperfect, because it is human, adds Newman, but definitive and necessary because given from above. [00:20:27] Speaker C: Right. [00:20:28] Speaker B: So not only do you need to have these. These necessary but not sufficient tests, but you need the ecclesial warrants. You know, as I said, experience is not a warrant. And then you need to have fundamentally the notion of revealed truth. That's what propositional revelation is, that Jesus revealed to us the truth about marriage and that marriage is grounded in the order of creation, the sacrament of marriage, ground, the order. [00:21:04] Speaker A: So there's some fundamental basis or foundation for all our doctrines that come from revealed, you know, from revealed truth, prophecies, revelation, the Bible. [00:21:15] Speaker B: That's right. [00:21:15] Speaker A: Obviously, we're not sola scriptura, but we are saying that it does. Does go back to the Bible on the Bible. [00:21:22] Speaker C: Yeah. [00:21:22] Speaker B: No, no, Absolutely. No, Absolutely. So it doesn't mean it's not a. I say a monistic principle of authority. Monistic principle of authority means that you think that the only. Honestly, not even Protestants believe that. But it's not a monistic principle of authority. That is to say, you need ecumenical councils, you need confessions and creeds and so on. You know, Yves Kongar once said that if we did away with the Nicene and Creed and Chalcedon, what would happen is that at some point we'd be repeating the same heresies again, and so we'd have to have another Nicaea and another Chalcedon and so on. So those councils and creeds and confessions and catechisms, they're all needed. They're all needed as a way of interpreting the Scriptures. Even though at the end of the day, it's Scripture that has primacy in that sense, to say that has primacy doesn't mean that it's the sole source of authority. [00:22:37] Speaker A: But there's some connection. Any of our doctrines we believe as Catholics, there's some connection to something that. [00:22:43] Speaker B: Has to be connected to the Bible. [00:22:44] Speaker C: Yeah, right. [00:22:45] Speaker A: Somehow connected to it. [00:22:47] Speaker B: That's why you. That's why it even matters. When you talk about. When one talks about Marian dogma. We can't just simply say, well, it's not in the Bible. So wise. No. Vatican II rejects the. What was, you know, called the two source theory of revelation, where you had two source of revelation that were. That were incomplete but compatible. It affirms, I think if you look, you know, in paragraphs 20 and the last five or so paragraphs of Dei Verbum, it affirms the primacy of Scripture. But again, as you rightly say, I mean, it has to be put in the context of in the context of the, the sacred tradition, ecumenical councils of faithful, as it were, faithful theologians, and ultimately the magisterium. But the magisterium, remember that says in DEI verme, the magisterium is a servant of the Word of God. The Pope is entrusted, the magisterium is entrusted with the authoritative sources of revelation. The magisterium is not a source of revelation. You know, I used to say to students, you know, the Pope, Marian dogma, the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption. The Pope didn't get up one day and say, and say, I had a revelation that God revealed him. That God and God revealed that Mary was assumed into heaven or that she was immaculately conceived. No, no, it's, it's, it's grounded in the tradition, ultimately in Scripture. And I, I think John Paul, in his encyclical on Mary Redemptorism, where does he begin? He begins with the Gospel of Luke, with Luke 1:42. Her. Mary's visiting her cousin Elizabeth and you know, the Magnificat. And then also things like that Mary and that Mary is the mother of God, the Incarnate Word. That's not a biological reality. Yes, of course it's biological, but it's a personal reality. Mary is the mother of the Incarnate Word, you see. And so that's, I think if you had a conversation with most Protestants, they, of course, would acknowledge that they're not Nestorians. You know, they don't think that they're, you know, two persons in Christ, you know. But in any case, so you got to start, it seems to me, for even Mary and dogma development, you got to start with Scripture. Mary has a singularly unique place in the plan of salvation. And if you begin where the Magnificat, you begin where she goes and visits her cousin Elizabeth. I mean, to me, that's a good starting point for. But if we get back to Newman. So marriage is the two, one flesh union between a man and a woman. That's the identity of type, because it's telling you this is the nature of marriage, and that nature is grounded in the order of creation. The truth of this judgment is grounded in objective reality. It's not just. I used to say when you had those bishops and cardinals, the Germans and Belgiums, and they would say, you know, they were just terribly liberal with respect to things like homosexuality and all that. But then they say, well, but the Church, the Church says that marriage is between a man and a woman. But, and of course that's true, but it's not true because the Church Says so it's not an ecclesial rule. [00:27:03] Speaker A: Yeah, that always drives me crazy when they. It's exactly what they're saying. They're saying, well, the Church says this, so I guess we have to teach that. [00:27:11] Speaker B: Exactly. [00:27:13] Speaker A: If the Church changes its mind tomorrow, we'll teach that then. [00:27:16] Speaker B: Well, exactly, that's right. [00:27:18] Speaker A: So the Church is just more like handing on what. It's not like making up, it's like, no, no, okay, we receive this, we're going to hand it on to you now. [00:27:26] Speaker B: No, no, the Church. The Church. And that, that, I think that's follows from Newman's continuity of principle and so on. The truth of this judgment that Marriage is a 2:1 flesh union of man and a woman is grounded in objective reality. That's why the catechism, when it. In the section on marriage, it begins by talking about marriage in the order of creation. Then there's the order, then there's the regime of sin, it calls it. But marriage still remains the same, it says, in the regime of sin. And then we finally get to the. To talk specifically about the order of redemption. Because Christ came to renew, to restore marriage to its original intent, as it were. So the order of creation, the way things really are. And here's the point, its contact with reality is the basis of this teaching's vitality, the idea that marriage is two one fashion, man and woman still has vitality because it's grounded in objective reality. [00:28:39] Speaker C: Right. [00:28:39] Speaker B: And of course, yes, of course, the culture we live in a culture where marriage is whatever two people want it to be. But we need to show the truth and vitality of marriage. Jesus. Jesus unites into an inextricable nexus the concepts of indissolubility, twoness and sexual differentiation. And hence we have the identity of type that must be conserved in the development of doctrine. [00:29:15] Speaker C: Right. [00:29:16] Speaker A: I saw somebody recently, somebody said that, like, development means you have X and that leads to Y, whereas change is you have X and now you no longer have X or you have not X. [00:29:31] Speaker B: Right. [00:29:31] Speaker A: You never deny the X. The first, the fundamental principle. Like you're saying, like in the example of marriage, the fundamental objective reality marriage is. But it could lead to a deeper understanding, which is kind of the why, why. [00:29:45] Speaker B: Right. [00:29:46] Speaker A: But you can't say all of a sudden, okay, no, marriage is one day it's. It's a union between a man and a woman, the next day, oh, now it's no, no, no. [00:29:54] Speaker B: Then it's. There's no continuity of principle there. [00:29:56] Speaker C: Right, right. [00:29:57] Speaker B: Here, let me give you another example. And this is related to Vatican II. So in, in Lumen Gentium 8, there's the recognition that there are elements of truth and sanctification outside the visual boundary of the Church. Well, let me, let me start even more basically. 1928, Mortalium animus of Pius XI. He rejects ecumenism. Vatican II, as we know, affirms ecumenism in its unitatis red integratio on the unity of, of. On the restoration of Christian unity. And John Paul follows that up 30 years later in his, his encyclical Ut unum sint that they all may be one. So you have some who might ask, well, if Pius rejects ecumenism, how do we, how do we connect, Right. His rejection of ecumenism with Vatican ii? Well, I think you have to have, I think you can show development here and not change, because change as change would mean that the Church actually came and rejected the first principle of Catholic ecclesiology. And that is that the Church that Christ founded is, is the Catholic Church. [00:31:36] Speaker C: Right. [00:31:37] Speaker B: You'd have. So Vatican II doesn't, doesn't reject that. If you go back to pious. Everything that Pius rejected about ecumenism, ecclesiological relativism, that there are many churches and that the Church, Catholic Church, just one among many. Well, Vatican II rejects that. You'd have to. Pius rejects the branch theory of Christianity where, where, you know, you have the Christianity and then you have all these branches, Catholicism being one of them, Presbyterians, Baptists, Lutherans and so on. Well, unitatis revving gratio rejects that. The one thing I think one has to see is that Pius, when Pius heard ecumenism, all he heard was ecclesial relativism, branch theory of Christianity. It's like today when unfortunately in Rome, through Francis. I'm not sure where Leo is on this. When I hear ecumenism, that's what I hear. You see ecclesial relativism. [00:32:56] Speaker C: Right, right. [00:32:57] Speaker B: The branch theory of Christianity. [00:32:59] Speaker A: I also think, like the ecumenism is a good example of how we're talking about the development of Christian doctrine and the practice of ecumenism. Obviously it touches doctrines, but really a lot of it. We're talking about a prudential decision of various popes and councils. Like, okay, is it worthwhile to engage with non Catholic Christians about this? Some might say prudentially, it's not really that worthwhile. Others might say it's worthwhile, but neither of them by that are, are, are contradicting each other on doctrine. They're more just. They're Just disagreeing with each other on practice. Now, the problem is that you say is that you mentioned is a lot of, I personally think a lot of modern ecumenism has fallen into the stuff that Pius was worried about. [00:33:47] Speaker B: And I agree with that. I agree in actual practice, but I agree with that. As I just said, I mean, I see it, I see it in, in particularly, I don't see it in John, Paul or Benedict, but I certainly saw it in Francis. And to this, to this date, I haven't seen, you know, Leo make a different judgment where. Okay, so in my view, this is here. Here's here. There's, there's this dilemma that has to be avoided on the one hand, affirming what Vatican II affirmed and that is that the Church that Christ founded subsists in its own right alone in the Catholic Church. But then concluding from that, which is to me implausible, concluding in that, that there's no ecclesial reality outside the Catholic Church. It seems to me the question that one has to ask, and I've written about this, the question that one has to ask is what about ecclesial unity and diversity within the one church? Because outside the visible boundary of the Church, it can't just be that there's, it isn't. It's totally, to me, it's totally false to say. It's not just that outside the visual under Church, all you have is an ecclesial wasteland or emptiness. No, I just, I've spent many years reading. I'm not even just talking about Luther and Calvin. I'm Talking about the 500 years of, you know, Protestant, Protestant theology of various sources. It's impossible to say that outside the Catholic Church, all you have is an ecclesial wasteland and emptiness. So the Church affirms that the Church that Christ founded subsists in its own right alone. In the Catholic Church, there's no multiple subsistence ecclesiology. It's not ecclesial relativism. There aren't many churches. On the other hand, the other horn of the dilemma that one has to avoid is to become an ecclesial relativist. When Vatican II says in paragraph 8 of the decree, the Constitution on, on the Church, and when it says it also in the in unitatis red integratio, that there are elements of truth and sanctification outside the visible boundary of the Church, that doesn't mean that the Church now embraces ecclesial relativism. So you have to, on the one hand, avoid saying, because we affirm rightly Like Leo, like Leo did, that there's only one church and that's the Church that Christ founded. It doesn't follow from that that there's just wasteland and emptiness outside the Church. On the other hand, if you affirming that there are these elements of truth and sanctification outside the visible boundaries of the Church, that doesn't lead you to ecclesial relativism. And here's to me, this is fundamental. In paragraph 17 of the Decree and ecumenism, the distinction is made between the propositional truths of faith, let's say, regarding the mysteries of revelation, let's say the lordship of Jesus Christ, and, and the formulation of those propositional truths of faith. It goes on to say in paragraph 17, it's not surprising if one tradition or another has come to a deeper appreciation of those truths, has given a more adequate formulation of those fundamental truths of the faith. Now those formulations, they can't just be any formulations. They have to be consistent with the Catholic faith, Catholic theology. But those, as it were, Protestant formulations, well, I can tell you that they have deepened my understanding of the Catholic faith. And that's what it says there. It says so that we can come to the point of saying that those formulations that are compatible with the Catholic faith have given a fuller appreciation of the Catholic faith, have deepened our understanding of Catholic faith. So then it is a dogmatic question, not just a practical one. It's a practical one of who you're going to engage with. Should I spend time talking to Methodists? I can tell you I was asked by the then bishop of Steubenville, Bishop Montforten, to be part of a group from the bishops conference discussing immigration with Methodist. And I quickly, honestly, I quickly decided it was a waste of my time. Yeah. Because these, these Methodists were just, you know, for open borders and blah, blah, blah. So, so that's a practical question. You want to spend time talking to Methodists about integration, I say no. [00:39:35] Speaker C: Okay. [00:39:35] Speaker B: But I think it's a dogmatic question to ask the question about ecclesial unity and diversity within the one church. That's the Catholic Church. That to me, that's. And then of course, lastly, the Vatican II never abandons the first principle of Catholic ecclesiology. Ratzinger says Vatican II found a way to reconcile the, the first principle of Catholic ecclesiology, that the church that Christ founded subsists in its own right alone, the Catholic Church, with a commitment to ecumenism. Because you, you know, the church came to the point through study, through Congar, the Lubeck, et cetera, et cetera. You can't just reject the, you know, you can't just reject the 500 years of reflection among great Protestant theologians. I mean, I'm thinking not just of. We don't agree with everything, but Karl Barth, Wolfhard, Ponenberg, they were just great Protestant theologians. We don't fall prey to an ecclesial relativism. But on the other hand, you know, I. I've learned too much from, like, Dutch Reformed theologians, Burkhauer and Bavink and so on to say, you know, so it's not. It's not just a practical question. It's not just a credential. It is a dogmatic question. It's prudential, as I said, whether you should engage in discussions with Methodists or Episcopal. Do you want to have conversations now with, you know, with Anglicans that are, you know, ordaining they just ordained a sacrilegiously a. A lesbian to be a bishop and blah, blah, blah. [00:41:38] Speaker A: I also think it's a predictional decision who you have doing the engagement on the Catholic side. Well, that's also because often you get Catholics who are not. Let's just not, well, form. And they're like giving away the farm. [00:41:53] Speaker B: No, of course you can have Janet Smith. She was. She was involved in. I forget the name of the Catholic ecumenical group dealing with moral theology. And. No, you can. I. You can find yourself being the only orthodox Catholic among the bunch, you know, and the other. [00:42:17] Speaker A: James Martin is representing the Catholic side on some ecumenical thing on sexuality. [00:42:23] Speaker B: That's just. No, that's preposterous. Yeah, right. [00:42:26] Speaker C: Right. [00:42:27] Speaker B: That's preposterous. Yeah, of course. That's. That's. That's. Yeah. [00:42:31] Speaker A: So I want to. I want to move on, though, to okay something about development again, going back to development. And I know, like, in, you know, I'm in the more traditional world, traditional Catholic world. And in traditional circles, there's kind of a divide on Newman. And some of us, like me, Peter Kwasnowski, people like that, we love Newman. We think he's great. We love development doctrine means. But there are good traditional Catholics, you know, they're not crazy anything. I'm just talking about solid who are at least. At the very least nervous. And I think a lot of the nervousness comes from how development has been used as a sword against traditional teachings by so many moderns. And so what can you kind of say to comfort at least that the kind of. The Catholic was like, you know, I really just don't and they, they even get nervous with his. This idea of development because we've forgotten. So many Catholics today have forgotten that our teachings are unchanging in fundamental ways. [00:43:34] Speaker B: Right, right. [00:43:34] Speaker A: It seems like everything is up for grass. In fact, I was accused in a. There's a book written by Father. I think it's Mark Massa or something like that. [00:43:42] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, I know Mark. I don't know him personally, but yeah, that book, Fundamental. [00:43:46] Speaker C: Right, right. [00:43:46] Speaker A: And then I was the featured person. [00:43:48] Speaker B: I wrote a column on it for. [00:43:49] Speaker A: Yeah, right. [00:43:51] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:43:51] Speaker A: One of the chapters was on me. [00:43:53] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah. [00:43:53] Speaker A: And specifically, though, he brought up that I think that, like, doctrine never changes and I reject Newman, stuff like that. And of course, like I said Newman. [00:44:03] Speaker B: About it in response. [00:44:04] Speaker A: Yeah. And so, like. But I do understand that, like there is, though, like in today's world, in today's Catholic world. I understand and I, and I rightly, I join it in a lot of ways, this idea that we need to cling to, like, unchanging truths. [00:44:21] Speaker B: Absolutely. [00:44:22] Speaker A: And Newman seems to be a weapon against that. That's the kind of perception. So how could you, like, comfort more traditionally in Catholics who would say, like, you know, how Newman just seems to be used for so much wrong. How can, how is it good that he's being. [00:44:35] Speaker B: Well, I would say that there are theological and philosophical reasons that Newman might offer. The theological ones have to do with the ecclesial warrants that I, that I, you know, stipulated there Sacred Scripture as primacy, ecumenical councils, which, which of course is going to include creeds and confessions and so on. The doctors of the Church, whether it's a, whether it's, whether it's Augustine, Aquinas, whoever it might be, including Newman now the Christian faithful, the magisterian. See, there are all of these criteria that we can appeal to the people who've misused development. They've taken development like this guy Massa. It's all. Change is experiential, you see. [00:45:40] Speaker C: Right. [00:45:40] Speaker B: So the, the, the criteria that I cite here has to be interpreted in terms of, in terms of experience. They think, you see, and they're historicists, you know, they think truth changes. You know, it's relative. And, and so they love that. They love when Newman says, you know, in the, in the, the essay on doctrinal development, that to be human is to change. And then Newman goes on to say, I forget the exact quote, but to change often. So they think that Newman is actually supporting the idea of change. But remember, as I said, Newman doesn't confuse development and change. He's influenced by Vincent of Lorenz from the Comunitori. Vincent says, in the Comunitore, Vincent says, let me quote to you, Vincent, because here again, so in the first place, there are criteria. Scripture, ecumenical councils, creeds, confessions. There's, you know, the magisterium, there's the Christian faithful. There are. There are doctors of the Church. So it's not as if you're starting from yourself, you're starting from your experience. And it's clear. I mean, the people who want. Like Massa and others, I mean, they're not faithful. They're not faithful Catholics. They don't. They don't think that. Now, of course. And then, of course, Newman is a realist in terms of the nature of truth. Truth for him, you know, involves, you know, these propositional propositions of faith. He's a realist because he thinks that those propositions are true if and only if what they assert is in fact the case about objective reality. So when the Bible says. When Genesis says God created man in his image, male and female, he created them. That's a statement that's grounded, as we said earlier, in reality, and we can know it to be true. And why is it true? It's true because it's grounded in reality. So there you have these kind of boundaries, these, these. These things that prevent the tradition from being just like Silly Putty. You know, you can make it. You make it be. You can't make marriage be. Whatever it is. It's grounded in the order of creation. So I think. I think now, of course, I've had. I remember having dinner, and I. And there are people in the United States as well, like this. I remember having dinner once in the Netherlands when I went to speak with a guy who thought, you know, that. That, you know, John Paul's theology of the body was heretical. And not only John the theology of the Body, but also even Gaudium et spes in paragraph 50 and following regarding marriage. I think that's absurd. I really do. I think it's a totally indefensible claim. Yes, of course. John Paul's theology of the body, it's about anthropology, a philosophical anthropology. It's about the nature of man. And he's defending what is Central to Genesis 1:27. I don't. There's the discussion about the, you know, the whole matter of does Vatican II somehow deprioritize procreation? I don't agree with that. I think I've written about that. I think it doesn't do that. So you have to I think one has to take the time to read this, to take time. I don't say John Paul is easy to read even the theology of the Body, but to read what he says in part two about the sacrament of marriage and so on, it's hard for me to understand why anyone would think that it's heretical. But let me read you this passage from Vincent of Lorenz, who was crucial to Newman. Father Guarino argues in his book Vincent of Lorenz and Development of Christian Doctrine. He has a chapter on Newman. There's that Newman was clearly inspired by Vincent, who and so is Vatican ii, John xxiii in Gaudium Gaude Mater Ecclesia. That's his introductory opening address at the Council. He cites this passage, John XXIII does, and it's really citing Vatican I, and Vatican I is actually citing Vincent of Lorenz. And here's, here's the passage from the Comunitori for the deposit of. This is what. Yes, this is what John XXIII says for the deposit of faith. 2 Timothy 1:14. The truths contained in our sacred teaching are one thing, the mode in which they are expressed, says John. And here's the crucial phrase, and this is from Vincent, but with the same meaning. And the same judgment is another thing. So the subordinate clause in that paragraph is the mode in which, but with the same meaning and the same judgment. The subordinate clause in this passage is part of a larger passage from the constitution of Vatican Council, 1 de Filius. And this passage is itself from The Comunitorium, Chapter 23 of Vincent, where Vincent says, therefore let there be growth and abundant progress in understanding, knowledge and wisdom in each and all, in individuals and in the whole Church at all times, and in the progress of ages. But, says Vincent, only within the proper limits, that is within the same dogma, the same meaning, the same judgment. So development has to take place within the same dogma. It has to have the same meaning. If you think that, if one thinks that same sex marriage is a development, it can't be because it doesn't have the same meaning, it doesn't have the same. You're not making the same judgment. And so I think people have to realize, unless you're. Unless. When it's completely against development, unless you think everything, everything that we need, that needs to be known has already been known. There's nothing more. As if everything that's been said, like everything that Trent said about, about justification, about the sacraments, about baptism, et cetera, the Eucharist, nothing more needs to be said now with respect to the Fundamentals, of course, with respect to what is unchanging truth. Yes. But surely we can grow in our understanding, deepen our understanding of what those truths are. And surely we can be assisted in, not just by other Catholics, be assisted in the deepening of our understanding of these truths, of the meaning and fundamental truths. We can be assisted by ecumenically, by other Christians. [00:53:28] Speaker A: I want to bring up, though, probably the most controversial application, I think, today of development, and that is Pope Francis and his teaching on the death penalty. He made it very clear that he saw that as a development, a deepening understanding of human dignity, and therefore it's now inadmissible. Use his terms, even put in the catechism. [00:53:54] Speaker B: Right. [00:53:55] Speaker A: It sounds, I mean, I know there's, like, ways you can explain that away. To me, though, that just sounds like it's now intrinsically evil. It's never permissible. Whereas clearly in Scripture, clearly in church teaching, it's always. [00:54:07] Speaker B: Right, right, right. [00:54:08] Speaker A: Not always. Not every application of it is necessarily. But the fundamental reality of the state. [00:54:13] Speaker B: Having the ability and not every. Even though I would say probably the majority of Christian theologians and philosophers throughout the ages have affirmed, you know, the, the, the moral legitimacy of capital punishment. Not, not all, you know, I would say, in my judgment, I don't believe that now. I haven't spent much time studying this. I mean, but in my judgment, I don't believe that the way that France has justified this will stand. [00:54:46] Speaker C: Right. [00:54:47] Speaker B: I mean, you have, you have theologians who try to justify his position, but the fact is he uses inadmissible. That. What does that mean? John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae, he doesn't use the word inadmissible, but also he doesn't use the word intrinsic, the phrase intrinsically evil, you see. [00:55:08] Speaker C: Right. [00:55:08] Speaker B: So he didn't think it was inherently wrong to him. It was more, I think it was more a practical matter, you know, that under certain circumstances. [00:55:26] Speaker A: And development is kind of the what's used by Francis and others to defend that, that change. [00:55:34] Speaker B: Right. But it's, to me, it's, you know, look, there are different, like on the one hand, you have Bob Fustiji, you know, defending the, the development, as it were. On the other hand, Feeser and others have written about this, you know, defending that the teaching is infallible teaching. So it's a, it's a. I would say it's a complicated teaching. It's a complicated discussion. And you can't just throw, one can't just throw the word development. It's like, and, and also the Phrase. Dignity. Excuse me? It's like, you know, this guy who's running for mayor of New York and he's a. He said, you know, he's. He says, no, I'm not a communist. I'm a. I'm a social democratic socialist. Because why? Because he believes in the inherent dignity of all human beings. You mean Republicans don't believe in the inherent dignity of human. All human beings? [00:56:49] Speaker C: Yeah. [00:56:50] Speaker B: In other words, that doesn't justify whatever he thinks. He believes that, you know, the means of production should be taken over by the state. In other words. I'm just saying the idea of development is, is, It's. It's a. In this instance, you know, it's the kind of thing that you have to consider those ecclesial warrants, you know, Scripture, the tradition of the church, etc. Etc. And of course, in that instance, well, the idea that it's that quote, unquote, capital punishment is inadmissible would conflict with the Bible, as you say. [00:57:29] Speaker C: Right. [00:57:30] Speaker B: With the tradition of the Church, with most of the teachers of the great teachers of the Church. I mean. [00:57:39] Speaker C: Right. [00:57:40] Speaker B: So I don't think this is going to be settled anytime soon. But I'm naughty. That's why I've never bought the new version of the catechism. [00:57:52] Speaker C: Right. [00:57:53] Speaker A: Because I saw the 1994 version of the first one. [00:57:58] Speaker B: I have the green version that came out with John Paul ii. [00:58:01] Speaker A: That's actually have the brown one that came out like the first one. It's the one that even has the. I don't want to go down this path. But the one about the lying being, like, it has that extra line about those who have the right to know. I actually have that. [00:58:14] Speaker B: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I remember that was the first. That's before the official. [00:58:19] Speaker C: Right. [00:58:19] Speaker A: That was in 1994 and in 1998, I think. [00:58:21] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah. The official edition is the green cover. [00:58:24] Speaker A: Yes, right, exactly. [00:58:25] Speaker B: That's the only catechism I have. I'm. I didn't. I know that. I don't know. It was. No, it wasn't. Ignatius Press, whoever was selling whichever Christian. [00:58:35] Speaker A: Well, Francis, like, it was a software program you just updated to 2.0, 3.0. [00:58:39] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, that's. It's like. I'm sorry, that's not developed. This is took. No, that's right. I don't see why. I don't. I don't think that capital punishment is rendered wrong because of human dignity. In fact, people have argued that human dignity is respected by capital punishment because it takes seriously the choices that men make. [00:59:03] Speaker C: Right? Yeah. Right. Right. [00:59:06] Speaker A: Okay. Okay. So I'm going to. Let's go ahead and wrap it up there. I. I appreciate all your thoughts. Of course. John Henry Newman, pray for us. And he is going to be declared a doctorate church officially on November 1. It was announced. So I think it's a great day for the church. And I think. [00:59:23] Speaker B: I like. [00:59:23] Speaker A: I like what you're doing, what others are doing to make sure we. We claim Newman for what he really is. And don't let the abusers of Newman get away. [00:59:34] Speaker B: The relativists. [00:59:35] Speaker C: Right. [00:59:36] Speaker B: Because that's what it comes down to. The relativists. You know, like Massa in his book, you see, they. They just. Oh, Newman. They turned Newman into a historicist. You know, truth is, you know, like he said about you. Oh. You don't think. You know, you don't think truth develops because you think truth is unchanging. [00:59:56] Speaker C: Right, right. [00:59:56] Speaker B: That's just. I argued in that my review of Mass's book that his understanding of Newman is incompatible with Newman's view of doctrinal development. Yeah, it's all baloney. Yeah. Okay. [01:00:10] Speaker A: Well, thank you, Doctor. I really appreciate it. [01:00:12] Speaker B: No, I'm. [01:00:12] Speaker A: I was glad you're. I'm glad you're keeping busy with the books and everything. [01:00:16] Speaker B: Yeah. Yeah, that's it. All right. Thanks a lot, man. Okay. [01:00:20] Speaker A: God bless you. [01:00:21] Speaker B: Pleasure. Take care the next time. Rabbi. [01:00:23] Speaker A: God love you. [01:00:24] Speaker B: Okay.