![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/05\/Newman33.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Dr. Eduardo J. Echeverria<\/a> is Professor of Philosophy and Systematic Theology in the Graduate School of Theology at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit. He obtained his Licentiate in Sacred Theology from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas (Angelicum) in Rome, and a doctorate in philosophy from the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.<\/p>\n On 15 May 2019, the second revised edition of his 2015 book,\u00a0Pope Francis: The Legacy of Vatican II<\/em><\/a> was published: expanding it from 237 pages to 456.<\/p>\n This is not a full-fledged review. I would simply like to highlight one major point, as indicated by my title. I do enthusiastically recommend the book. I have the first edition, and I\u2019m sure the revision is wonderfully insightful as well.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n I was personally heartened to read the following assessment in the Preface:<\/p>\n Pope Francis has been created in the image of many one-sided receptions of his thought by both liberal and traditional Catholics. Both sides of this reception share the view that Pope Francis\u2019s novelty is best represented by words like break, rupture, and indeed, revolution. Of course they differ in their assessment of his novelty; the former embrace it, and the latter reject it. . . .<\/p>\n [T]he narrative that has taken hold in the mind of many people is, indeed, false . . . it is clear from Francis\u2019s own theological writings that his theological thinking is fully coherent with the teachings of Vatican II and that of his two immediate predecessors.\u00a0(p. xiii, xvi in the first edition, as throughout)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I say I am heartened, because this is essentially the same sentiment I expressed in my 2014 book, Pope Francis Explained<\/em><\/a>, in both the Introduction<\/a> and Afterword:<\/p>\n It seems that everyone wants to make the pope (like they often do with God Himself) into their own image. Those outside the Church do this in proportion to how \u201ccontra-Catholic\u201d or secular they are: up to and including atheists; as well as dissenting modernists and theological liberals within the Church (the \u201ccafeteria\u201d \/ pick and choose types).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n In\u00a0Evangelii gaudium<\/i>, Pope Francis . . . [states]:<\/p>\n The Church \u2026 needs to grow in her interpretation of the revealed word and in her understanding of the truth \u2026. Within the Church countless issues are being studied and reflected upon with great freedom. Differing currents of thought in philosophy, theology and pastoral practice, if open to being reconciled by the Spirit in respect and love, can enable the Church to grow, since all of them help to express more clearly the immense riches of God\u2019s word. For those who long for a monolithic body of doctrine guarded by all and leaving no room for nuance [in expression], this might appear as undesirable and leading to confusion. But such variety [of expression] serves to bring out and develop different facets of the inexhaustible riches of the Gospel. [no. 40]<\/p>\n This is not doctrinal relativism. Francis makes clear that \u201cwe constantly seek ways of\u00a0expressing\u00a0<\/i>unchanging truths in a language which brings out their abiding newness.\u201d He explains: \u201cAt any rate, religions refine certain\u00a0expressions<\/i>\u00a0[of the truth] with time, even though it is a slow process because of the sacred bond that we have with the received inheritance \u2026 the received revelation\u201d [On Heaven and Earth<\/i>, 26-27]. Let\u2019s be clear that Bergoglio is affirming here a growth of human understanding, its refinement, maturation, and development of the dogmas of the Christian religion. Notwithstanding Bergoglio\u2019s affirmation that\u00a0\u201cwe grow in the understanding of the truth\u201d [A Big Heart Open to God,\u00a0<\/i>62], truth itself is, he says, unchangeable.<\/p>\n In that interview, Pope Francis cites a passage from the\u00a0Commonit\u00f3rium primum<\/i>\u00a0of the fifth century monk Vincent of L\u00e9rins (died c. 445): \u201cThus even the dogma of the Christian religion must proceed from these laws. It progresses, solidifying with years, growing over time, deepening with age.\u201d Pope Francis continues in this interview:<\/p>\n St. Vincent of L\u00e9rins makes a comparison between the biological development of man and the transmission from one era to another of the deposit of faith, which grows and is strengthened with time. Here, human self-understanding changes with time and so also human consciousness deepens. \u2026So we grow in the understanding of the truth. (pp. 39-41; footnote information is bracketed and included)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n I should note (being a huge follower of Cardinal Newman myself, and editor of three books of his quotations<\/a>), that St. Vincent of L\u00e9rins was the primary patristic inspiration for his own classic work, Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine<\/em><\/a>. Arguably, Newman was consciously developing what St. Vincent had begun. The\u00a0Commonit\u00f3rium <\/i>was, in fact, the predominant and by far the most explicit example of an analysis of development of doctrine in the Church fathers.<\/p>\n Hence, Blessed Cardinal Newman stated in a letter to Lord Acton, dated 19 July 1862: \u201cAs to development of doctrine and action in the Church I should hold to\u00a0Vincentius\u2019s account of it, who compares it to bodily growth . . .\u201d Likewise, Newman wrote to William Froude on 29 April 1879<\/a>:<\/p>\n [T]hough we maintain the fact of a Revelation as a first principle, as firmly as you can hold that nature has its laws, yet, when the matter of the Revelation [given] comes to be considered, very little is set down as the original doctrine which alone is\u00a0de fide<\/i>, and within which the revealed truth lies and is limited. As Newton\u2019s theory is the development of the laws of motion and the first principles of geometry, so the corpus of Catholic doctrine is the outcome of Apostolic preaching. That corpus is the slow working out of conclusions by means of meditation, prayer, analytical thought, argument, controversy, through a thousand minds, through eighteen centuries and the whole of Europe. There has been a continual process in operation of correction, refinement, adjustment, revision, enucleation, etc., and this from the earliest times, as recognised by Vincent of Lerins.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n Although some\u00a0legitimate traditionalists and many radical Catholic reactionaries<\/a> seem to often grossly misunderstand legitimate development of doctrine as heretical \u201cevolution of dogma\u201d (just as they often wrongly collapse authentic ecumenism into indifferentism), it was one of their heroes, Pope St. Pius X, who made a strong defense of Cardinal Newman\u2019s orthodoxy. In a\u00a0letter from Pope St. Pius X to Bishop O\u2019Dwyer<\/a> in\u00a01908, the saint-pope wrote:<\/p>\n [T]he writings of Cardinal Newman, far from being in disagreement with Our Encyclical Letter\u00a0Pascendi<\/i>, are very much in harmony with it . . .\u00a0Regarding the large number of books of great importance and influence which he wrote as a Catholic, it is hardly necessary to exonerate them from any connection with this present heresy. . . .\u00a0nothing can be found to bring any suspicion about his faith. . . .\u00a0what the Modernists do is to falsely and deceitfully take those words out of the whole context of what he meant to say and twist them to suit their own meaning. We therefore congratulate you for having, through your knowledge of all his writings, brilliantly vindicated the memory of this eminently upright and wise man from injustice . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Now that it is established that St. Vincent of\u00a0L\u00e9rins lies behind Cardinal Newman\u2019s exposition of doctrinal development, and that Pope St. Pius X explicitly endorsed the latter, and that Pope Francis is utilizing the same reasoning from St. Vincent (and will canonize Blessed Cardinal Newman, probably this year), we see that it\u2019s all perfectly orthodox. What he advocates is not<\/em> heretical liberal evolution of dogma, but rather, orthodox L\u00e9rinian \/ Newmanian development of doctrine. Dr. Echeverria elaborates at length on this motif in his article, \u201cPope Francis, the L\u00e9rinian legacy of Vatican II, and capital punishment\u201d<\/a> (The Catholic World Report<\/em>, 10-15-17):<\/p>\n Francis does not hold the truth itself to be variable with time and place, but only the formulations, namely, \u201cthe forms for expressing truth \u2026 in order to develop and deepen the Church\u2019s teaching\u201d (A Big Heart Open to God<\/i>, 63). Indeed, he aligns himself with John Paul II making clear that it is the expression\u2014not<\/i>\u00a0the truth\u2014that changes: \u201cLet us never forget that \u2018the expression of truth can take different forms. The renewal of these forms of expression becomes necessary for the sake of transmitting to the people of today the Gospel message in its unchanging meaning\u2019 [Ut Unum Sint<\/i>, no. 19]\u201d (Evangelii gaudium<\/i>, no. 42). Elsewhere he adds, \u201cIt [the task of evangelization] constantly seeks to communicate more effectively the truth of the Gospel in a specific context,\u00a0without renouncing the truth<\/i>, the goodness and the light which it can bring\u201d (Evangelii gaudium<\/i>, no. 45, emphasis added).<\/p>\n Thus, the greatest danger, according to Pope Francis, is that even \u201cwith the holy intent of communicating the truth about God and humanity\u201d we may \u201chold fast to a formulation while failing to convey its substance.\u201d As I argued in my book,\u00a0Pope Francis and the Legacy of Vatican II<\/i>, I think we need to understand that he is a man of the\u00a0L\u00e9rinian legacy of Pope John XXIII<\/span>.<\/p>\n In particular, Vincent\u2019s point about the nature of development is supported by a distinction he insists on between\u00a0progress<\/i>\u00a0and\u00a0change<\/i>, the import of which is not lost on Francis who, like Vincent, compares the transmission of faith with the biological development of man. Hence, development must be organic and homogeneous. Vincent writes: \u201cBut it [progress of religion] must be such as may be truly a\u00a0progress<\/i>\u00a0of the faith, not a\u00a0change<\/i>; for when each several thing is improved in itself, that is\u00a0progress<\/i>; but when a thing is turned out of one thing into another, that is\u00a0change<\/i>.\u201d In other words, the import here of this distinction is that (as Guarino notes) \u201c\u2018development\u2019 can never mean a substantial transformation, a change in the very essence of a church teaching. The theologian of L\u00e9rins very carefully balances growth and preservation.\u201d<\/p>\n Vincent distinguishes between \u201cprogress\u201d and \u201cchange.\u201d Regarding the former, he understands the development of faith as progress that is organic and homogeneous and occurring within the boundaries of the dogma. In other words, the faith remains identical with itself in its progress. He distinguishes this idea of development from another in which an understanding of faith\u2019s development involves \u201ca thing [being] turned out of one thing into another, that is, of\u00a0change<\/i>.\u201d The point here is made clear by Vincent: progress in understanding may result in new modes of expression, but such expressions are authentic and legitimate only if they keep the same meaning and the same judgment [eodem sensu eademque sententia<\/i>]. In other words, the same datum of faith is said in different ways. In short, truth is unchangeable, development of dogma is not a development of truth, or a change in Church teaching, but a development in the Church\u2019s\u00a0understanding<\/i>\u00a0of the truth.<\/p>\n Pope Francis affirms a legitimate diversity of theological formulations of unchanging truth, but is mindful that the diversity must be consistent, complimentary, and commensurable with the truth. He says, \u201cWe need to listen to and complement one another in our partial reception of reality and the Gospel\u201d (Evangelii gaudium<\/i>, no. 40n44).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig M\u00fcller applied Newmanian reasoning on development of dogma to Pope Francis and specifically Amoris Laetitia<\/em> in his article, \u201cDevelopment, or Corruption?\u201d<\/a> (First Things<\/em>, 2-20-18). He observed:<\/p>\n\n\n
These all want him to be so-called \u201cprogressive\u201d and are more than willing to\u00a0project\u00a0<\/i>this attribute onto him, in a huge campaign of wishful thinking, if in fact it is not there. . . .<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nOn the other end of the scale, the radical Catholic reactionaries, on the extreme right on the Catholic ecclesiological spectrum and a hair\u2019s breadth away from schism, exaggerate new popes\u2019 differences (if any) from previous popes, and become needlessly alarmed that the Church is revising or transforming itself; going to pot because of the new \u201cliberal\u201d pope. . . .<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThus, we have a scenario whereby folks on both the \u201cleft\u201d and the \u201cright\u201d of the theological spectrum massively misinterpret what a new pope says and does. I aim to show both factions the errors and illusions of their ways. (pp. 5-6)<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThe truth is that he is perfectly orthodox<\/em>, but merely striking in style<\/em> and presentation<\/em>, which is a lot like Jesus and Paul. (p. 126)<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nTo this end, I have collected no less than 353 articles<\/a>, explaining this very thing: that Pope Francis is no heterodox liberal or dissident or revolutionary; and have written 128 of my own<\/a> along the same lines. Among these are two collections that helpfully document the orthodoxy of Pope Francis on many different issues:<\/div>\n\n
Documentation: Pope Francis is Orthodox, Pro-Tradition and Against Modernism<\/a>\u00a0(Dan Marcum, Catholic Answers Forum, 1-9-15)<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nPope Francis On . . .<\/a>\u00a0[31 different issues]\u00a0(Mark Mallett,\u00a0The Now Word<\/em>, 4-24-18)<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nDr. Echeverria repeatedly stresses in his book that this pope\u2019s supposed innovations or novelties are in fact, examples of legitimate Newmanian and L\u00e9rinian development of doctrine. For example:<\/div>\n\n\n
\n