John Henry Newman Controversy

  • Thread starter Thread starter rben20
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It has been said here, several times, that there is no longer a Devil’s Advocate in the canonization process and thus erros creep in. This is inaccurate. The title was change for a better title. That role is fulfilled by the Defender of the Faith. The role and the work is the same. And Newman’s writings were carefully scrutinized and it was Cardinal Ratzinger who said that his writings were not contrary to the faith and it was he who said that they were comparable to those of Bonaventure and Augustine, whom Cardinal Ratzinger studies for both of his doctoral degrees. The wording in Bl. John Newman’s writings may sound strange to us and even contrary, but the Church found no doctrinal fault in them.

They were examined by the Postulator of the Cause, the Defender of the Faith, a committee of six cardinals, and the Prefect for the Congregation of the Faith (Joseph Ratzinger), then eventually by Pope John Paul II himself. This was spoken about earlier this week on EWTN.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
And Newman’s writings were carefully scrutinized and it was Cardinal Ratzinger who said that his writings were not contrary to the faith and it was he who said that they were comparable to those of Bonaventure and Augustine, whom Cardinal Ratzinger studies for both of his doctoral degrees.
Click to expand...
There have been several speeches by Pope Benedict XVI over the last few days that give an idea of his view of Blessed John Henry Newman. Here is an excerpt from one:
Let me begin by recalling that Newman, by his own account, traced the course of his whole life back to a powerful experience of conversion which he had as a young man. It was an immediate experience of the truth of God’s word, of the objective reality of Christian revelation as handed down in the Church. This experience, at once religious and intellectual, would inspire his vocation to be a minister of the Gospel, his discernment of the source of authoritative teaching in the Church of God, and his zeal for the renewal of ecclesial life in fidelity to the apostolic tradition. At the end of his life, Newman would describe his life’s work as a struggle against the growing tendency to view religion as a purely private and subjective matter, a question of personal opinion. Here is the first lesson we can learn from his life: in our day, when an intellectual and moral relativism threatens to sap the very foundations of our society, Newman reminds us that, as men and women made in the image and likeness of God, we were created to know the truth, to find in that truth our ultimate freedom and the fulfilment of our deepest human aspirations. In a word, we are meant to know Christ, who is himself “the way, and the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6).

(Fr. Z. is following the papal visit and posting the texts of his speeches: wdtprs.com/blog/
 
floresco said:
There have been several speeches by Pope Benedict XVI over the last few days that give an idea of his view of Blessed John Henry Newman. Here is an excerpt from one:Let me begin by recalling that Newman, by his own account, traced the course of his whole life back to a powerful experience of conversion which he had as a young man. It was an immediate experience of the truth of God’s word, of the objective reality of Christian revelation as handed down in the Church. This experience, at once religious and intellectual, would inspire his vocation to be a minister of the Gospel, his discernment of the source of authoritative teaching in the Church of God, and his zeal for the renewal of ecclesial life in fidelity to the apostolic tradition. At the end of his life, Newman would describe his life’s work as a struggle against the growing tendency to view religion as a purely private and subjective matter, a question of personal opinion. Here is the first lesson we can learn from his life: in our day, when an intellectual and moral relativism threatens to sap the very foundations of our society, Newman reminds us that, as men and women made in the image and likeness of God, we were created to know the truth, to find in that truth our ultimate freedom and the fulfilment of our deepest human aspirations. In a word, we are meant to know Christ, who is himself “the way, and the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6). (Fr. Z. is following the papal visit and posting the texts of his speeches: wdtprs.com/blog/
Click to expand...
In short, Newman is precisely the right man for our times.
 
Victorious said:
In short, Newman is precisely the right man for our times.
Click to expand...
Defnitely. It is unfortuante to see Catholic bloggers talking his writings on the development on Christian doctrine apart. Because they are not reading it the way that the Magisterium is reading these writings. The Church is reading this work and other works of Newman in the context of his entire life and all of his writings as a whole. In fact, in that very work, Newman goes on to talk against relativism. What he does is drive home two points at the same time.

First, he drives home that Christian doctrine has a life of its own; therefore, it is organic. Newman is trying to show that Christian doctrine is not dependant on our approval or our belief. It is what it is. This is the message in the title of this treatise. He is not in conflict with the teaching of the Church that says that doctrine is fixed or static. Newman never questions that. Truth is truth and Newman reinforces this On the Development in Christian Dogma. What he is talking about is how Christian Dogma develops within different societies. In other words, he goes on to show how Christian doctrine gradually permeates society. It is not that doctrine evolves. The point that he makes is that it emerges despite the resistance of man. I’ve read this work in grad school theology and it’s not light reading. There are many layers here.

Second, the reader has to understand that Newman begins this work in search for an intellectual justification of the Church of England and by the end of the work he concludes that the truth is found in the Catholic Church and that the Church of England has not other place to go but back home to the Church of Rome. To take the questions that Newman raises without the conclusion that he reaches is not fair to the writing and to the man.

I definitely agree that he is a man for our times. He is reminding us that Truth will find its way, no matter how desperately society attempts to squelch it. It is a great message of hope.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
LilyM said:
Newman in his own writings mentioned temptation to sexual sin, but only ever in respect of women rather than men, and in fact said he preferred friendships with men precisely because they weren’t occasions of that sort of temptation.

A bit of a blow to the old gay agenda, that, eh what?

**As for the exhumation **- happens to lots of people, not just Newman. I’d imagine it was because Newman, and not Ambrose St John, is and will become the focus of religious cultus. A joint tomb would hardly be the thing for someone wanting to pay their respects to Blessed John Newman by praying at his grave now, would it?
Click to expand...
An exhumation is done with all bodies during the process of investigation for sainthood. Precisly for the purpose of possibly having relics and in the past also to ensure that the body/tomb is the correct one since in many places the process of burying and recording gaves was not very careful. Of course, in cases of some martyrs and those who died during wars and in other chaotic conditions it may not be possible, but the church does do this as a matter of course whenever possible.
 
Mrs_Sally said:
An exhumation is done with all bodies during the process of investigation for sainthood. Precisly for the purpose of possibly having relics and in the past also to ensure that the body/tomb is the correct one since in many places the process of burying and recording gaves was not very careful. Of course, in cases of some martyrs and those who died during wars and in other chaotic conditions it may not be possible, but the church does do this as a matter of course whenever possible.
Click to expand...
You are correct. If there is a grave, the body must be exumed. Padre Pio’s body was exhumed for his beatification. In the cases of Sts. Maximilian Kolbe and Edith Stein, this did not happen, because we have no idea where their bodies are. The Nazis burried them in a common grave.

What is interesting about Newman’s case is that there is a new sarcaphogus, but inside are personal belongings and some dirt from the tomb. There was nothing in the tomb. He had his coffin covered with compost to ensure that nothing would remain. They found only the plate that is was screwed on to the lid of the casket, not even the casket. The plate was not placed in the sarcaphogus. It’s at the oratory. When you visit the sacarphogus, inside there is dirt from his grave and some belongings. That’s it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Lots of great points mentioned on here. Especially;
  • Public Revelation ceased but Private Revelation is ongoing.
  • The book is called DEVELOPMENT of Christian Doctrine, not creation.
  • The fact that Newman’s writing of this work actually was a cause of him converting to Catholicism. One could say he wrote himself into the Church.
  • Many modern theologians use his writings. In fact, Karl Keating highly recommended Newman’s writings in “Catholicism and Fundamentalism”.
Regarding the rumors of homosexuality, there’s a term called “Ho Yay”, which is used to describe when two men have a friendship that has some homosexual overtones. Perhaps another Englishman could provide some wisdom on this. As found on the TV Tropes Website, in reference to one Clive Staples Lewis;

*Ho Yay: Deconstructed in The Four Loves. More specifically Lewis is saying that those who look for it in Heterosexual Life Partners will automatically find it to their satisfaction and therefore it is a meaningless exercise. *
 
Many, within the Church and outside of it, have tried to sully Cardinal Newmans impeccable reputation and sanctity. All have failed to do so. He deserves the title of Saint and Doctor of the Church. Pray for his canonization.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
I’m glad to find a forum with contributors who have such insights and resources as I have found in this thread.

But, the controversy is beyond my level of understanding at the present time. I have only been exposed to this in recent times due to various modern controversies, which may boil down to erroneous perceptions, perhaps.

One of these controversies had to do with the declaration of papal infallibility. And, then, too the declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

I don’t know why we (the Church) need to box ourselves into corners like that which just throws up barriers to interfaith dialog. Mother Angelica was very opinionated about having the doctrine of Mary’s Mediatrix declared a dogma “so that you HAVE to believe it.” Why do we need to do these things?

These are not obvious ideas, like such that can be found in scripture. I like the post using the imagery of a swimming pool, with shallow and deep ends. Most Catholics are at the very shallow end – and how else could it be? Who can keep up with centuries of writings and such that are becoming available on the internet, for example, only in the recent decades?

I get the impression that people at the deep end of the pool keep making it deeper, to put my concern one way. Is that what we need to be doing? Why can’t the Church just deal with the job of evangelization itself, without making the wall higher to scale to get into the church?

Anytime I see a group of Catholics and a priest, it always becomes a question and answer session just to keep up with what’s new or with what we never heard in the first place?

The related problem is, I can’t imagine how anybody can become a priest in just five years of study. There are just so many deep issues and we get referred to original documents like Newman’s which are quite puzzling to read.
 
Crumpy said:
I’m glad to find a forum with contributors who have such insights and resources as I have found in this thread.

But, the controversy is beyond my level of understanding at the present time. I have only been exposed to this in recent times due to various modern controversies, which may boil down to erroneous perceptions, perhaps.

One of these controversies had to do with the declaration of papal infallibility. And, then, too the declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

I don’t know why we (the Church) need to box ourselves into corners like that which just throws up barriers to interfaith dialog. Mother Angelica was very opinionated about having the doctrine of Mary’s Mediatrix declared a dogma “so that you HAVE to believe it.” Why do we need to do these things?
Click to expand...
Blessed John Henry accepted papal infallibility. Here are his own words on the subject taken from a letter to a friend: I have for these 25 years spoken in behalf of the Pope’s infallibility. The other day a review (I forget what) observed with surprise that even in my article on la Mennais in 1838 I had tacitly accepted the Pope’s infallibility. I think I have spoken for it in my Essay on Development of Doctrine in 1845. In 1850 I have introduced the Pope’s Infallibility several times into my lectures at the Birmingham Corn Exchange. In 1852 I introduced it most emphatically and dogmatically into my lectures delivered at the Rotundo at Dublin. In 1856 I spoke of it in a new Preface I prefixed to the new Edition of my Church of the Fathers—and in 1868 I reprinted the passage from my Dublin Lectures in a collection of passages made by a Roman Jesuit Father on the dogma, in an Italian translation.
[From letter to Alfred Plummer, July 19, 1872. Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman, C.S. Dessain and T. Gornall S.J. editors, Volume XXVI, p. 139 (1974).]

I found a blog entry with a good explanation: socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/newman-on-papal-infallibility.html

Some have claimed that John Henry Cardinal Newman denied the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility. In actuality, he was an inopportunist, that is, one who (at the time of the First Vatican Council in 1870) favored waiting to dogmatically define the definition of papal infallibility (for fear of the Ultramontane party and their ideas and devices). This is a completely different proposition from acceptance or non-acceptance of some form of infallibility.

The blog article has an extended quote from Ian Ker’s John Henry Newman: A Biography an excellent book on the subject. I encourage those interested in learning the truth of this to read the material I have linked to.
Crumpy said:
These are not obvious ideas, like such that can be found in scripture. I like the post using the imagery of a swimming pool, with shallow and deep ends. Most Catholics are at the very shallow end – and how else could it be? Who can keep up with centuries of writings and such that are becoming available on the internet, for example, only in the recent decades?

I get the impression that people at the deep end of the pool keep making it deeper, to put my concern one way. Is that what we need to be doing? Why can’t the Church just deal with the job of evangelization itself, without making the wall higher to scale to get into the church?

Anytime I see a group of Catholics and a priest, it always becomes a question and answer session just to keep up with what’s new or with what we never heard in the first place?

The related problem is, I can’t imagine how anybody can become a priest in just five years of study. There are just so many deep issues and we get referred to original documents like Newman’s which are quite puzzling to read.
Click to expand...
The Church does not expect everyone to be a scholar. But we are expected to trust the decisions of the Church. One does not need in-depth knowledge to believe that the Church had good reason to beatify Blessed John Henry. One needs trust.
 
Faith requires us to believe all that God has revealed. We have to believe what God has revealed whether there is a formal definition or not (for example, it was not ok to deny the divinity of Christ before the Nicene Creed was made binding). However, when there is a question as to whether something is a truth of faith or not, the Magisterium intervenes to rule definitively one way or another (of course, someone who was wrong in good faith was not sinning).

It’s not about building a higher wall, it’s about casting light on a wall that already exists and giving us the tools to get over it. God has revealed what He has because He loves us–to call such truths obstacles rather than helps is to lack faith in His love for us (which is easy to do as fallen human, most of us do not have faith to move mountains, etc.).

The truth of the Cross was a stumbling block for many, but we can’t remove that truth. Other truths are stumbling blocks for other people, but it is not for us to hide them away, but rather to point them out.

Also, if you don’t like the fact that the deposit of faith is so deep and profound, wait until you get to Heaven and you have to ponder the infinitenes of God for all eternity! 🙂
 
Genesis315 said:
Cardinal Newman was not a modernist. Granted, he, Loisy, and Tyrell were trying to do the same thing: explain how the acorn of doctrine in the early Church became the oak of in the Church today. Loisy and Tyrell got it wrong, but Newman got it right. Loisy and Tyrell were condemned and their explanation branded as the heresy of modernism, while Newman was rewarded with the red hat.

The Modernists claimed dogma emanated from the collective consciousness of the people and evolved from one thing to another over time rather then being revealed by God once and for all. On the other hand, the development explained by Newman was the same explained by St. Vincent de Lerins in his famous 5th century Commonitorium:

newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm

In other words, to use the tree analogy, the modernists said a fern evolved into a redwood, whereas Newman (and St. Vincent) said a redwood sapling was cultivated and developed into a full grown redwood. Doctrine does not evolve, but it does develop.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the above tree analogy. To that I would add a quote from another of the Cardinal’s writings to which the director of the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation has provided. [Hugh Owen http://www.kolbecenter.org/”]www.kolbecenter.org ]. I think that this quote emphasis the fact that Cardinal Newman was NOT a modernist:

…*it is true…that Revelation has in one or two instances advanced beyond its chosen territory, which is the invisible world, in order to throw light upon the **history *of the material universe. Holy Scripture…does declare a few momentous facts, so few that they may be counted, of a physical character. It speaks of a process of formation out of chaos which occupied six days; it speaks of the firmament, of the sun and moon being created for the sake of the earth; of the earth being immovable; of a great deluge and of several other similar facts and events (emphasis added).12

For the "immovable" part of the above quote go to catholicintl.com/ and catholicintl.com/galileowaswrong/index.html – Conference in South Bend IN November 6, 2010
12 The Idea of a University (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1959), p. 399.
To the above I would add another “development” of our understanding of creation that was unavailable to Cardinal Newman. It is based on scientific discoveries in the past fifty or so years and has been perhaps best expressed by “Buffalo” in another forum: He currently calls it IDvolution:
God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.

One might say that science is rapidly catching up with scripture including Genesis.🙂
 
chypmonk said:
I disagree that losing the “devil’s advocate” was a good thing. I think that Newman should not be canonized. … His theory of the development of doctrine, not by intention, but materially it is in grave error especially condemned by St; Pius X in his syllabus against the errors of the modernists.
Click to expand...
I myself have only a modest first-hand knowledge of Blessed John Henry’s writings – mostly his sermons and the Apologia – so I don’t claim any great expertise about him. But that Ratzinger fellow seems to think highly of him, and that’s a pretty strong endorsement in my book!

(I should add that it’s not by accident that I was received into the Catholic Church on October 9 a few years ago – Blessed John Henry’s feast day, and the anniversary of *his *reception into the Church!)
 
Let’s slow down here. There are some real issues that have to be clarified.

A canonization is both a human and a Divine act.

It is human, because the people involved in the process of studying the person’s life and the alleged miracles are human and because the pope who gives his final assent is human.

It is divine, because once it is done, it is an Ex Cathedra decree. It is an infallible decree that a person is in heaven.

Therefore, we have no right to tell the Pope that he should ignore the movement of the Holy Spirit. In this case, the Cardinal’s life was studies very meticulously and found to be heroic and virtuous. That chatper is now closed. His writings were studied and found to be consistent with Church teaching and where there was a difference, no heresy was found. Therefore, that chapter is now closed. A miracle has been attributed to his intercession. Now enters the Divine. God confirms what we believe about the man.

How can a God-fearing Catholic say that he should not be canonized, when God is revealing that he is in heaven? In essence, the person is asking the Church to ignore what God has done.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Crumpy said:
I don’t know why we (the Church) need to box ourselves into corners like that which just throws up barriers to interfaith dialog. Mother Angelica was very opinionated about having the doctrine of Mary’s Mediatrix declared a dogma “so that you HAVE to believe it.” Why do we need to do these things?
Click to expand...
We need the Truth. We need the truth about God because He wants us to love Him, and we cannot love what we do not know. And if you’re looking for something explicit from Scripture, how about the fact that the truth shall make us free?
Crumpy said:
These are not obvious ideas, like such that can be found in scripture. I like the post using the imagery of a swimming pool, with shallow and deep ends. Most Catholics are at the very shallow end – and how else could it be? Who can keep up with centuries of writings and such that are becoming available on the internet, for example, only in the recent decades?
Click to expand...
You mean we ought to just lower expectations to the point where they’re already met? How, then, can we grow in holiness?
Crumpy said:
I get the impression that people at the deep end of the pool keep making it deeper, to put my concern one way. Is that what we need to be doing?
Click to expand...
Yes. Higher and deeper, as Dietrich von Hildebrand said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top