No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 September 2014
Newman, in the famous essay in question, cited the Nicene orthodoxy of the faithful during the Arian controversy as this main, and only extended, argument for the thesis that there were situations in the life of the church where the Christian faith was upheld more consistently by the ordinary faithful than by their pastors. This article shows that historical evidence does not support Newman's claim for the faithful in the Arian controversy, and raises the question as to whether this fact undermines his thesis about the dogmatic importance of the sensus fidelium.
1 This article is most conveniently consulted in Newman, John Henry, On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine, ed. with an intro. by Coulson, John (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1961).Google Scholar It appeared first “in the Rambler for July 1859; and part of it, with some additions and amendments, was re-printed in 1871 as an appendix to the third edition of The Arians of the Fourth Century” (ibid., 1). All references will be to the 1961 edition, and will follow the somewhat eccentric punctuation and use of italics employed by Newman.
2 Ibid., 53.
3 Ibid., 73.
4 E.g., see Dionne, J. Robert, The Papacy and the Church (New York: Philosophical Library, 1987), 339, 361;Google ScholarDulles, Avery, The Reshaping of Catholicism (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988) 97–98;Google Scholar and Granfield, Patrick, The Limits of the Papacy (New York: Crossroad, 1990), 137.Google Scholar
5 Newman, , On Consulting the Faithful, 75.Google Scholar
6 Ibid., 75-76.
7 Ibid., 76.
8 Ibid. 77.
9 Ibid.
10 Hanson, R. P. C., The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988), 851–52.Google Scholar All references to Hanson are to these two pages unless otherwise specified.
11 Newman, , On Consulting the Faithful, 86.Google Scholar
12 This expression is notoriously vague. In Newman's argument, and consequently also here, it refers to rejection of the homoousion.
13 These are examples 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 12, and 14 in Newman's dossier.
14 Newman's item 14.
15 On the difficulty of determining just what Liberius signed, see Hanson, , The Search for the Christian Doctrine, 358–62.Google Scholar
16 Newman's item 18.
17 This despite the praise of Sozomen, which had just been quoted by Newman, : “With respect to doctrine no dissension arose either at Rome or in any other of the Western Churches. The people unanimously adhere to the form of belief established at Nicaea” (Historia Ecclesia, 6, 23).Google Scholar Newman fails to mention the fact that Sozomen then proceeded to tell about the Arian bishop Auxentius of Milan!
18 Items 1, 2, 5, 6, 13, and 15.
19 Item 3, p. 88.
20 Item 4, page 89 of the Coulson edition. The citation is from Sozomen, , Historia Ecclesia, 6, 21.Google Scholar In the 1871 revision, Newman quietly dropped this item from his dossier.
21 It is hard to tell why Hanson bothers to refer to Eusebius of Emesa, since as he points out Eusebius's troubles with the people of his diocese had nothing to do with the Arian controversy.
22 Lines 588-90 and 657-60, quoted in the translation by Meehan, Denis Molaise, Fathers of the Church 75 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1986), 93 and 96.Google Scholar
23 Ibid., lines 1325-70, pages 114-15 of Meehan's translation.
24 Theodoret, , Historia Ecclesia, 2,19.Google Scholar
25 Socrates, , Historia Ecclesia, 5, 3.Google Scholar
26 Altercatio Luciferiani et Orthodoxi, 18. This is the same document in which Jerome remarks, “Ingemuit totus orbis, et Arianum se esse miratus est,” quoted by Newman in “On Consulting the Faithful,” 84 (though he has se esse Arianum), and by countless other writers as “The whole world groaned and was amazed to find itself Arian.” Gribomont, Jean dates this work to 381-82, in Patrologia III, ed. di Berardino, A. ([Torino]: Marietti, 1978), 226.Google Scholar
27 The phrase is Newman's, , On Consulting the Faithful, 76.Google Scholar
28 For monastic supporters of Macedonius in Constantinople, see Socrates, , Historia Ecclesia, 2, 38Google Scholar, and Sozomen, , Historia Ecclesia, 4, 2.Google Scholar
29 Although this central role of the bishop is downplayed by Dujarier, Michel, A History of the Catechumenate: The First Six Centuries (New York: Sadlier, 1979)Google Scholar, the reader cannot help noticing the episcopal character of the baptismal mysteries. This comes through even more clearly if one reads the surviving baptismal catecheses, conveniently available in Yarnold, Edward, The Awe-Inspiring Rites of Initiation: Baptismal Homilies of the Fourth Century (Slough: St. Paul Publications, 1971).Google Scholar
30 The only exceptions were the monks' excommunication of Gregory Nazianzen's father, and the incident at Tomi in Scythia where the people refused to communicate with the emperor—but their refusal was led by their legitimate bishops (Sozomen, , Historia Ecclesia, 6, 21Google Scholar)!
31 de Tillemont, Lenain, Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire ecclésiastique des six premiers siècles, 2nd ed. (Paris: Charles Robustel, 1704) 6: 388–89Google Scholar, referring to the saint described in the Acta Sanctorum for February 7.