What does he mean?

[Sempronius]

John Henry Newman wrote about John Locke and was quoting something Locke said, which I cannot understand but it seem interesting. So hopefully some one of you can explain it.

How a man may know whether he be [a lover of truth for truth's sake] is worth inquiry; and I think there is this one unerring mark of it, viz. the not entertaining any proposition with greater assurance than the proofs it is built upon, will warrant. Whoever goes beyond this measure of assent, it is plain, receives not truth in the love of it; loves not truth for truth's sake, but for some other by-end."

Its from paragraph 2 called supremacy of faith page 327


http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/chapter7.html

[John Lamb]

That: If you have greater conviction or certainty than evidence or proof for your assertion, then you are not a lover of truth, but hold that conviction for some ulterior motive.

Let's quote the full passage:

Antagonistic to this is the principle that doctrines are only so far to be considered true as they are logically demonstrated. This is the assertion of Locke, who says in defence of it,—"Whatever God hath revealed is certainly true; no doubt can be made of it. This is the proper object of Faith; but, whether it be a divine revelation or no, reason must judge." Now, if he merely means that proofs can be given for Revelation, and that Reason comes in logical order before Faith, such a doctrine is in no sense uncatholic; but he certainly holds that for an individual to act on Faith without proof, or to make Faith a personal principle of conduct for themselves, without waiting till they have got their reasons accurately drawn out and serviceable for controversy, is enthusiastic and absurd. "How a man may know whether he be [a lover of truth for truth's sake] is worth inquiry; and I think there is this one unerring mark of it, viz. the not entertaining any proposition with greater assurance than the proofs it is built upon, will warrant. Whoever goes beyond this measure of assent, it is plain, receives not truth in the love of it; loves not truth for truth's sake, but for some other by-end."

What Newman is condemning here is a proposition of the rationialists, which Locke (a rationalist in regards to religion) holds: that it is up to reason (and not, say, the authority of the Church) to decide what God has revealed and what He hasn't. This attitude is a kind of extension of the Protestant practice of private interpretation, where it's left to the individual to decide what God has revealed by reading the scriptures according to his own lights (which is why 19th century Catholic writers would commonly say that rationalism was born out of Protestantism). In other words, the rationalist looks at scripture and decides what parts are divine revelation, and what parts are not, not submitting himself to judgement of the Church, e.g. if the rationalist decides that the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves is a myth or an allegory, and not a real miraculous event, because there is not sufficient historical evidence that it took place, or because miracles are impossible in general, or because such an event is intrinsically absurd - then the rationalist can decide that this miracle is not a part of divine revelation. Similarly, the rationalist can look into scripture and decide for himself, relying upon his reason, that: there was no virgin birth, that Our Lord did not really rise from the dead, that St. Paul's conversion was not a real vision of Our Lord but some kind of hallucination, etc. Whereas St. Paul says that faith comes through hearing, by hearing the apostles that God has sent and submitting the mind to their divine authority; the rationalists say that one should not believe anything first, without having sufficient proof or evidence. Therefore, rationalists corrupt the very notion of faith itself. Modern day rationalists simply state in the open that faith itself is absurd and that we should not believe anything without evidence or proof. Of course, this is absurd, as St. Thomas says:

"The Evidence of Things that Appear Not."—But someone will say that it is foolish to believe what is not seen, and that one should not believe in things that he cannot see. I answer by saying that the imperfect nature of our intellect takes away the basis of this difficulty. For if man of himself could in a perfect manner know all things visible and invisible, it would indeed be foolish to believe what he does not see. But our manner of knowing is so weak that no philosopher could perfectly investigate the nature of even one little fly. We even read that a certain philosopher spent thirty years in solitude in order to know the nature of the bee. If, therefore, our intellect is so weak, it is foolish to be willing to believe concerning God only that which man can know by himself alone. And against this is the word of Job: "Behold, God is great, exceeding our knowledge" [Job 36:26]. One can also answer this question by supposing that a certain master had said something concerning his own special branch of knowledge, and some uneducated person would contradict him for no other reason than that he could not understand what the master said! Such a person would be considered very foolish. So, the intellect of the Angels as greatly exceeds the intellect of the greatest philosopher as much as that of the greatest philosopher exceeds the intellect of the uneducated man. Therefore, the philosopher is foolish if he refuses to believe what an Angel says, and far greater fool to refuse to believe what God says. Against such are these words: "For many things are shown to you above the understanding of men"

Here are the propositions of the rationalists condemned in Pope Pius IX's Syallbus of Errors:

I. PANTHEISM, NATURALISM AND ABSOLUTE RATIONALISM

[...]

3. Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil; it is law to itself, and suffices, by its natural force, to secure the welfare of men and of nations. -- Ibid.

4. All the truths of religion proceed from the innate strength of human reason; hence reason is the ultimate standard by which man can and ought to arrive at the knowledge of all truths of every kind. -- Ibid. and Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846, etc.

5. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the advancement of human reason. -- Ibid.

6. The faith of Christ is in opposition to human reason and divine revelation not only is not useful, but is even hurtful to the perfection of man. -- Ibid.

7. The prophecies and miracles set forth and recorded in the Sacred Scriptures are the fiction of poets, and the mysteries of the Christian faith the result of philosophical investigations. In the books of the Old and the New Testament there are contained mythical inventions, and Jesus Christ is Himself a myth.

II. MODERATE RATIONALISM

8. As human reason is placed on a level with religion itself, so theological must be treated in the same manner as philosophical sciences. -- Allocution "Singulari quadam," Dec. 9, 1854.

9. All the dogmas of the Christian religion are indiscriminately the object of natural science or philosophy, and human reason, enlightened solely in an historical way, is able, by its own natural strength and principles, to attain to the true science of even the most abstruse dogmas; provided only that such dogmas be proposed to reason itself as its object. -- Letters to the Archbishop of Munich, "Gravissimas inter," Dec. 11, 1862, and "Tuas libenter," Dec. 21, 1863.

10. As the philosopher is one thing, and philosophy another, so it is the right and duty of the philosopher to subject himself to the authority which he shall have proved to be true; but philosophy neither can nor ought to submit to any such authority. -- Ibid., Dec. 11, 1862.

11. The Church not only ought never to pass judgment on philosophy, but ought to tolerate the errors of philosophy, leaving it to correct itself. -- Ibid., Dec. 21, 1863.

12. The decrees of the Apostolic See and of the Roman congregations impede the true progress of science. -- Ibid.

13. The method and principles by which the old scholastic doctors cultivated theology are no longer suitable to the demands of our times and to the progress of the sciences. -- Ibid.

14. Philosophy is to be treated without taking any account of supernatural revelation. -- Ibid.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

[Quaremerepulisti]

Newman made a valiant attempt to combat the rationalism of his day (and gained a bad rep in some circles due to his pains).  But, in the end, it is irrational to claim more support for a belief or proposition than is warranted by evidence, reason, and logic, and this is why the rationalists won the debate.  Needlessly so, if theologians would have thought outside the box just a little.

It can be known to metaphysical certainty that if God reveals something, it is true.  THIS is not the proposition that rationalists were disputing, and so appeals that rationalists "reject the authority of God revealing" are completely beside the point.  The question is what doctrines are actually revealed by God and how is that decided.

Saying that the Church, and not individuals, decide what is actually revealed by God only pushes the question one step farther back.  How is it decided that the Church has such authority and prerogative?  If by reason, then in the end, it IS reason that is the final judge of what is revealed by God and what is not.  But if by faith, e.g., it is revealed by God that the Church has the authority to decide what is revealed by God, then that only begs the question yet again, how is it known that that is revealed by God?  If the answer is that the Church says so, the epistemology is viciously circular and any non-Catholic religious denomination could say the same thing: there is nothing separating the Catholic Church from any other religion.  If that is not the answer, then what?

The answer is the internal testimony of the Holy Ghost - that is observed on an individual level and provides complete proof of the claims of Christianity.  This is what was missing.

[St.Justin]

The answer is the internal testimony of the Holy Ghost - that is observed on an individual level and provides complete proof of the claims of Christianity.  This is what was missing.

That answer is why there are over 30,000 different protestant denominations and God knows how many other heresies. They all believe that they have the internal testimony of the Holy Ghost.

[John Lamb]

But, in the end, it is irrational to claim more support for a belief or proposition than is warranted by evidence, reason, and logic, and this is why the rationalists won the debate.

They won the culture war, not the debate.

If that were the case then the faith would be irrational (because faith by definition is belief in things which are not, or even cannot, be rationally demonstrated), which cannot be the case seeing as the Church teaches that there is no conflict between faith & reason.
No, it is not irrational to give assent to an authority, provided that the authority's credibility can be established.

Saying that the Church, and not individuals, decide what is actually revealed by God only pushes the question one step farther back.  How is it decided that the Church has such authority and prerogative?  If by reason, then in the end, it IS reason that is the final judge of what is revealed by God and what is not.

Faulty logic. Just because reason is used to affirm the credibility of an authority, does not mean that reason is used to determine what is revealed to be true by that authority, e.g. if a man shows up on your doorstep dressed as a policeman with proper identification, and tells you that your relative has been killed, then you assent to the proposition (death of a relative) not by reason but by faith, even if you used reason to establish that he was trustworthy. Similarly, just because reason is used to establish the credibility of the Roman Church, does not mean that reason is used to determine the dogmas of the Roman Church. But that's precisely what the rationalists were saying, viz. that reason should be used, not just to show that the Roman Church has the deposit of Christian revelation, but that reason should be used to determine the content of that revelation itself, e.g. if there is no reason to believe that the Assumption happened, then the Assumption is not a part of revelation, no matter what the Roman Church says in the matter. This is why the rationalists corrupted the notion of faith: instead of it being a matter of externally hearing an authority, faith instead becomes internal to one's reason; so that a rationalist does not believe what the Church tells him to believe, but only what he himself thinks is reasonable to believe.

The rule of faith is definitely external (i.e. God, speaking through the scriptures and the magisterium), and definitely not internal (e.g. one's own reason, or private inspiration). "Faith comes through hearing".

[Quaremerepulisti]

No, John.

Either reason can or it cannot rationally demonstrate the following:

1. If the Church teaches X, X is true.
2. The Church teaches X.
3. Therefore, X.

Reason can know this is valid. So the question is regarding 1. If 1 is known by reason, then X is likewise known by reason. The fact it could not be rationally demonstrated but for the Church teaching it is irrelevant. It is still known via reason.

[Gardener]

No, John.

Either reason can or it cannot rationally demonstrate the following:

1. If the Church teaches X, X is true.
2. The Church teaches X.
3. Therefore, X.

Reason can know this is valid. So the question is regarding 1. If 1 is known by reason, then X is likewise known by reason. The fact it could not be rationally demonstrated but for the Church teaching it is irrelevant. It is still known via reason.

Not sharpshooting you, just wondering how you would/would not apply this to something like Islam or Protestantism (choose a flavor, more than Baskin Robbins!...)?

[John Lamb]

1. If the Church teaches X, X is true.
2. The Church teaches X.
3. Therefore, X.

Valid reasoning, but 1. is not known by reason, but by faith.

The farthest reason can reach is to say, "if Christ is the Son of God, then the Roman Church is His Church, and whatever His Church authoritatively teaches is true," but that does not force assent to the first clause, Christ is the Son of God, which is not known by reason, but by faith.

[Quaremerepulisti]

1. If the Church teaches X, X is true.
2. The Church teaches X.
3. Therefore, X.

Valid reasoning, but 1. is not known by reason, but by faith.

The farthest reason can reach is to say, "if Christ is the Son of God, then the Roman Church is His Church, and whatever His Church authoritatively teaches is true," but that does not force assent to the first clause, Christ is the Son of God, which is not known by reason, but by faith.

Granted.  But this forces the conclusion that Christ is not known to be the Son of God because the Roman Church teaches it - that would be circular.  So when you say this is known by faith it forces the conclusion that this must be an internal inspiration of or revelation by the Holy Ghost.  If you deny that this is a fundamental part of Catholic epistemology then what you are really saying is that doctrines cannot really be known, but are, at bottom, simply irrational objects of belief and hence lose the debate to the rationalists.

[Quaremerepulisti]

The answer is the internal testimony of the Holy Ghost - that is observed on an individual level and provides complete proof of the claims of Christianity.  This is what was missing.

That answer is why there are over 30,000 different protestant denominations and God knows how many other heresies. They all believe that they have the internal testimony of the Holy Ghost.

And they all claim to be the Divinely-founded religion as well.  So what?  Is that a reason why we shouldn't claim Catholicism to be Divinely founded?

This is a prime example of the difference between polemical thinking, and critical thinking.  Polemical thinking is primarily concerned with refuting the claims of one's opponent, whereas critical thinking is primarily concerned with what is true, or what can be shown to be true.  And the danger of polemical thinking is illustrated here: by refuting an opponent's claim by simply denying an assumption without critical examination of it, it can leave oneself open to a different line of attack from a different opponent, from which one has no defense since one needs that assumption.

So, if we just deny that internal inspiration of the Holy Ghost is an integral part of an epistemology of faith (how one knows one's beliefs, or which beliefs, are true), we can refute those Protestants who claim Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli were inspired by the Holy Ghost.  Works great - until rationalists come along and show that, if this is indeed the case, not only Protestantism, but also Catholicism, are at bottom, either irrational beliefs held without sufficient evidence, or simply conclusions based on reason and only reason.  Catholics have no real answer except to condemn "rationalism" because it leads to conclusions they don't like.

[Quaremerepulisti]

No, John.

Either reason can or it cannot rationally demonstrate the following:

1. If the Church teaches X, X is true.
2. The Church teaches X.
3. Therefore, X.

Reason can know this is valid. So the question is regarding 1. If 1 is known by reason, then X is likewise known by reason. The fact it could not be rationally demonstrated but for the Church teaching it is irrelevant. It is still known via reason.

Not sharpshooting you, just wondering how you would/would not apply this to something like Islam or Protestantism (choose a flavor, more than Baskin Robbins!...)?

Of course it applies.  The question is still regarding 1. and how it is known or not known to be the case regarding Missouri Synod, Southern Baptist, or Reform Judaism.  You have to get out of the epistemological circle of "We know what true doctrine is because the true Church teaches it; and we know what the true Church is because it teaches true doctrine."

[St.Justin]

The answer is the internal testimony of the Holy Ghost - that is observed on an individual level and provides complete proof of the claims of Christianity.  This is what was missing.

That answer is why there are over 30,000 different protestant denominations and God knows how many other heresies. They all believe that they have the internal testimony of the Holy Ghost.

And they all claim to be the Divinely-founded religion as well.  So what?  Is that a reason why we shouldn't claim Catholicism to be Divinely founded?

This is a prime example of the difference between polemical thinking, and critical thinking.  Polemical thinking is primarily concerned with refuting the claims of one's opponent, whereas critical thinking is primarily concerned with what is true, or what can be shown to be true.  And the danger of polemical thinking is illustrated here: by refuting an opponent's claim by simply denying an assumption without critical examination of it, it can leave oneself open to a different line of attack from a different opponent, from which one has no defense since one needs that assumption.

So, if we just deny that internal inspiration of the Holy Ghost is an integral part of an epistemology of faith (how one knows one's beliefs, or which beliefs, are true), we can refute those Protestants who claim Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli were inspired by the Holy Ghost.  Works great - until rationalists come along and show that, if this is indeed the case, not only Protestantism, but also Catholicism, are at bottom, either irrational beliefs held without sufficient evidence, or simply conclusions based on reason and only reason.  Catholics have no real answer except to condemn "rationalism" because it leads to conclusions they don't like.

Your quote "The answer is the internal testimony of the Holy Ghost - that is observed on an individual level and provides complete proof of the claims of Christianity.  This is what was missing." seems to be saying just the opposite of this post. It seems to be saying that " the internal testimony of the Holy Ghost" is the one sure fire way of knowing the truth.

Now you seem to be saying no to that. I am just a dumb farm boy from Mississippi and I don't get what you are saying.

[John Lamb]

But this forces the conclusion that Christ is not known to be the Son of God because the Roman Church teaches it - that would be circular. So when you say this is known by faith it forces the conclusion that this must be an internal inspiration of or revelation by the Holy Ghost.

Sure. But this is in line with what the scholastics say about the act of faith, viz. that it involves the will, through charity, moving the intellect in its assent to the propositions of faith. This gift of faith is of the Holy Ghost.
The Roman Church provides the objective aspect of faith (the propositions of divine revelation), and the Holy Ghost provides the subjective aspect of faith (the assent to divine revelation contained in the teaching of the Roman Church). Both are necessary.

[John Lamb]

So, if we just deny that internal inspiration of the Holy Ghost is an integral part of an epistemology of faith (how one knows one's beliefs, or which beliefs, are true), we can refute those Protestants who claim Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli were inspired by the Holy Ghost.

Catholic theologians have never denied that the grace of the Holy Ghost is involved in the act of faith. The difference between the Catholic and Protestant understanding of faith is: Protestants not only believe that the Holy Ghost internally provides the grace to believe, but that the Holy Ghost even internally provides the propositions of faith which are to be believed, i.e. the Holy Ghost doesn't just inform us how to believe, He also informs us what to believe. Whereas Catholics assert that the Holy Ghost informs us how to believe (through the infusion of the virtue of faith), but that it is the authority of the Roman Church that teaches us what to believe. So the propositions or dogmas of faith are received internally for Protestants, and externally for Catholics.

To say that the source of your faith in itself is an internal inspiration of the Holy Ghost is right, but to say that you receive the dogmas of faith by an internal inspiration of the Holy Ghost is misleading, dangerous, and leads to the situation in Protestantism where one Protestant's Holy Ghost has taught him something different from another Protestant's Holy Ghost. This is precisely why there needs to be a visible teaching authority that declares the dogmas of the faith publicly; because a faith based solely on private inspiration would leave is in a situation where it would be impossible to tell who is inspired and who isn't.

[Quaremerepulisti]

Your quote "The answer is the internal testimony of the Holy Ghost - that is observed on an individual level and provides complete proof of the claims of Christianity.  This is what was missing." seems to be saying just the opposite of this post. It seems to be saying that " the internal testimony of the Holy Ghost" is the one sure fire way of knowing the truth.

Now you seem to be saying no to that. I am just a dumb farm boy from Mississippi and I don't get what you are saying.

No, I'm not saying no to that.  I'm saying some Catholic apologists said no to that as a handy-dandy refutation of Protestantism - and as a result, left themselves completely vulnerable to rationalist critiques.