John Henry Newman Controversy

[floresco]

Say rather that the term “transubstantiation” did not come into being until the 11th century, and was formally adopted at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. The Church has always believed in that which it denotes; but at some point, it became necessary to come up with a precise way of describing it in order to avoid error.

I suppose I was not being clear because that is pretty much the point I was trying to make. The belief was always there but the way of expressing it developed. This is what is meant by “development of doctrine” and the concept does not oppose Church teaching.

 

[Javl]

Once again I reiterate. Cardinal Newman deserves Sainthood. His writings are orthodox and are within the Church’s body of teaching.

Because his writings and methods of expression are not to the likings of some does not mean that he is controversial or wrong. Many have taken quotations from his writings out of context and have used,or are using them as proof of his straying from orthodoxy. Many others have either started or prolonged rumors that are used against him. That is all they are, rumors without a modicum of truth.

All should step aside and keep their doubts about Cardinal Newman to themselves. Let the Church’s “Devil’s Advocate” do his job and present any proofs contra to beatification.
When all is done, then, and only then, can we make a personal decision about the Cardinal.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[chypmonk]

Once again I reiterate. Cardinal Newman deserves Sainthood. His writings are orthodox and are within the Church’s body of teaching.

Because his writings and methods of expression are not to the likings of some does not mean that he is controversial or wrong. Many have taken quotations from his writings out of context and have used,or are using them as proof of his straying from orthodoxy. Many others have either started or prolonged rumors that are used against him. That is all they are, rumors without a modicum of truth.

All should step aside and keep their doubts about Cardinal Newman to themselves. Let the Church’s “Devil’s Advocate” do his job and present any proofs contra to beatification.
When all is done, then, and only then, can we make a personal decision about the Cardinal.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

JPII got rid of the “Devil’s Advocate” so who is doing the job?

 

[colmcille1]

Hi all,
I am looking forward to seeing the coverage of the Holy Father presiding at the Beatification ceremony. One great intellect greeting another.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[chypmonk]

If public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, how can Newman say otherwise?

“We shall find ourselves unable,” he says again, “to fix an historical point at which the growth of doctrine ceased. Not on the day of Pentecost, for St. Peter had still to learn at Joppa about the baptism of Cornelius; not at Joppa and Caesarea, for St. Paul had to write his Epistles;*** not on the death of the last apostle,***…"(Developments of Doctrine pg.107)

This is a clear error.

Has any of you defending Newman even read the article ? catholicvox.blogspot.com/2009/07/john-henry-newmans-essay-on-development.html

He says that Christianity came into the world as an “idea” not as an “institution”:
“Christianity,” he says, “though spoken of in prophecy as a kingdom, came into the world as an idea rather than an institution, and has had to wrap itself in clothing, and fit itself with armor of its own providing, and form the instruments and methods of its own prosperity and warfare.”(pg.116)

This was condemned by Pius X in Lamentabili Sane, July 3, 1907– #52: It was far from the mind of Christ to found a Church as a society which would continue on earth for a long course of centuries.–condemned.

 

[Victorious]

When did Newman write the passages you cite as a problem?

 

[floresco]

If public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, how can Newman say otherwise?

“We shall find ourselves unable,” he says again, “to fix an historical point at which the growth of doctrine ceased. Not on the day of Pentecost, for St. Peter had still to learn at Joppa about the baptism of Cornelius; not at Joppa and Caesareae the same m, for St. Paul had to write his Epistles;*** not on the death of the last apostle,***…"(Developments of Doctrine pg.107)

This is a clear error.

Has any of you defending Newman even read the article ? catholicvox.blogspot.com/2009/07/john-henry-newmans-essay-on-development.html

I read most of the article, although I gave up near the end since it seemed to be the same basic misunderstanding repeated over and over again. The article equated growth (or development) of doctrine with new revelation and that just is not what Newman means.

Positing development of doctrine does not mean claiming the existence of new doctrines or new revelations. It means that the same revealed doctrine that has been true since the beginning may be explained with more precision, more details, or with new specialized terminology. The article calls these changes developments of theology and has no problem with conceding their existence. But this is just what Newman is talking about. The author of the essay has his own idea of what “development of doctrine” means and ignores what Newman means.

There is nothing heretical in what Newman wrote about development of doctrine. I am in good company in saying this, since we can assume this is also the view of Pope Leo XIII (who made Newman a Cardinal) and Pope Benedict XVI (who is beatifying him). While it is possible that I might be mistaken, it is far less likely that two Popes managed to miss what your article claims is a clear heresy.

 

[Javl]

JPII got rid of the “Devil’s Advocate” so who is doing the job?

You’re right. I had forgotten about that. My apologies. The advocate has not been replaced. It’s just a matter of investigation and sifting through both pro and con evidence and then giving a summary report.

PAX DOMINI :signofdross:

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

If public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, how can Newman say otherwise?

Public revelation ( i.e: Scripture ) ended with the death of the last Apostle ( St. John the Divine ), but private revelation is ongoing.

“We shall find ourselves unable,” he says again, “to fix an historical point at which the growth of doctrine ceased. Not on the day of Pentecost, for St. Peter had still to learn at Joppa about the baptism of Cornelius; not at Joppa and Caesarea, for St. Paul had to write his Epistles;*** not on the death of the last apostle,***…"(Developments of Doctrine pg.107)

This is a clear error.

Has any of you defending Newman even read the article ? catholicvox.blogspot.com/2009/07/john-henry-newmans-essay-on-development.html

He says that Christianity came into the world as an “idea” not as an “institution”:
“Christianity,” he says, “though spoken of in prophecy as a kingdom, came into the world as an idea rather than an institution, and has had to wrap itself in clothing, and fit itself with armor of its own providing, and form the instruments and methods of its own prosperity and warfare.”(pg.116)

This was condemned by Pius X in Lamentabili Sane, July 3, 1907– #52: It was far from the mind of Christ to found a Church as a society which would continue on earth for a long course of centuries.–condemned.

Cardinal Newman was not in error. You have to read the entire thing to understand what he says and is saying. Pius X may have misunderstood it as supporting humanism. Believe me, if Cardinal Newman were in error and expounding heretical views, he would have been subject to severe disciplinary action and possibly excommunication, such as happened to Kung and Shillebeex. Instead he was made a Cardinal and a Doctor of the Church.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Victorious]

****Cardinal Newman was not in error. You have to read the entire thing to understand what he says and is saying. Pius X may have misunderstood it as supporting humanism. Believe me, if Cardinal Newman were in error and expounding heretical views, he would have been subject to severe disciplinary action and possibly excommunication, such as happened to Kung and Shillebeex. Instead he was made a Cardinal and a Doctor of the Church.

Actually, he’s not a Doctor of the Church. All the Doctors of the Church (and there are currently 33) are canonized saints. He has a ways to go yet.

 

[chypmonk]

When did Newman write the passages you cite as a problem?

That is one of the problems. If you read the article linked above he expalins that Newman wrote "Development as a Protestant but published it after becoming a Catholic. It seems that no one really critically studied it–( I think out of human respect because the possibility of conversion of all of England was hoped for at that time.

As far as it slipping through popes-- Just look at the LC’s fiasco that happened under popes from Pius XII to JPII so popes can’t always catch everything. I think the author is trying to be of service to the Church.

As far as being excommunicated this is jumping the gun. He was in error but wasn’t pernicious-- so he wasn’t a heretic just mistaken.

 

[floresco]

He was in error but wasn’t pernicious-- so he wasn’t a heretic just mistaken.

Except there is no reason to think he was in error or mistaken.

 

[GIR]

Newman’s detractors seem to be forgetting 2 things.

Newman converted to Catholicism after his research that led to his work on the development of doctrine.

Newman was made a cardinal. If there were any indication of heresy on his part, I highly doubt he would have been granted that honor.

 

[chypmonk]

Newman’s detractors seem to be forgetting 2 things.

Newman converted to Catholicism after his research that led to his work on the development of doctrine.

Newman was made a cardinal. If there were any indication of heresy on his part, I highly doubt he would have been granted that honor.

Obviously there can be mistakes of prudence in the Church. This is no proof that he wasn’t mistaken in some of his thoughts. His words I quoted and the condemnation by Pius X (in general at a later date) of his idea is clear.

Was the founder of the Legionaries of Christ (LCs) held in high esteem at one time? Was he given honors? Well that could have happened here too. And since there is no “Devil’s Advocate” now who is doing the dirty work? The Church had the “Devil’s Advocate” office for just such situations as we are discussing and it may have been a mistake to get rid of it.

 

[Javl]

Actually, he’s not a Doctor of the Church. All the Doctors of the Church (and there are currently 33) are canonized saints. He has a ways to go yet.

He may not be one officially, but he is considered one. Many theologians use his writings.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[floresco]

Obviously there can be mistakes of prudence in the Church. This is no proof that he wasn’t mistaken in some of his thoughts. His words I quoted and the condemnation by Pius X (in general at a later date) of his idea is clear.

No, it is not clear. It is nonexistent. What Newman was saying was different from the idea that Pius X condemned.

We don’t need proof that Newman was not mistaken. The burden of proof is on those who claim he was mistaken. So far, all of these claims are based on attributing a meaning to Newman’s words that they obviously do not have.

I recently did a course on Newman taught by several instructors. All of these men are notable for their brilliance and orthodoxy and they have studied Newman’s works intensively. These experts do not see the problem that you are imagining. Popes apparently do not see the problem that you are imagining. For what it’s worth, I don’t see the problem you are imagining. What Newman has written about development of doctrine is consistent with Church teaching. It is not heretical.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

There doesn’t seem to be much difference between someone plumbing the scriptures for personal interpretation and someone plumbing the doctrines of the Magisterium for the same personal interpretation. It is the Catholic version of making oneself the final arbiter of the faith and it ends up being the individual who passes judgment on the Church.

 

[Genesis315]

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:

Therefore, whatever has been sown by the fidelity of the Fathers in this husbandry of God’s Church, the same ought to be cultivated and taken care of by the industry of their children, the same ought to flourish and ripen, the same ought to advance and go forward to perfection. For it is right that those ancient doctrines of heavenly philosophy should, as time goes on, be cared for, smoothed, polished; but not that they should be changed, not that they should be maimed, not that they should be mutilated.​

[The Church of Christ] keeps this one object carefully in view,— if there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it, if any already ratified and defined, to keep and guard it. Finally, what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently, that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly, that what was before practised negligently should thenceforward be practised with double solicitude? This, I say, is what the Catholic Church, roused by the novelties of heretics, has accomplished by the decrees of her Councils,— this, and nothing else,— she has thenceforward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those of olden times only by tradition, comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by the characteristic of a new name.

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.

 

[LilyM]

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?

 

[floresco]

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 were condemned and their explanation branded as the heresy of modernism, while Newman was rewarded with the red hat.

Well said. Blessed John Henry Newman certainly was not a modernist. On the contrary, one of the major themes of his writing was his opposition to liberalism. I have the impression that this is the very aspect work of his which the Pope wishes to emphasize, as it is so relevant and important to our times.

Blessed John Henry Newman was a brilliant man who, starting as an Anglican, studied and wrote himself into the Catholic Church. On the Development of Doctrine shows him dealing with the last barrier between himself and the Church. Catholics were (and still are) commonly accused of adding to Revelation. As an Anglican, Newman had believed this himself. In this work he takes apart this accusation against Catholicism and realizes that it is not true. There is no addition to Revelation. Rather doctrines which have been always present become more explicit.