Newman's beatification is disturbing

  • Thread starter Thread starter treba
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

treba

Guest
I now it may be a shock to many it was for me. Ven. John Henery Newman seems to have held theories that were very heterodox!

Since JPII got rid of the “devil’s advocate” I think the saint process may be moving too rapidly to really question Newman’s writings.

His whole theory of the development of Christian Doctrine ( according to his book on the subject) was condemned by St. Pius X but I wonder why more traditionalist don’t bring this up?

I find it scandalous to canonize a man whose theories have practically destroyed the Church!!!
 
Hey Eucharisted, thanks for that link in your sig. It will be very handy.
 
excelsus said:
Hey Eucharisted, thanks for that link in your sig. It will be very handy.
Click to expand...
Gloria Dei!

I didn’t make the cheat sheet, by the way. I just got permission to make a copy of it, so it wouldn’t be lost.
 
treba said:
I now it may be a shock to many it was for me. Ven. John Henery Newman seems to have held theories that were very heterodox!

Since JPII got rid of the “devil’s advocate” I think the saint process may be moving too rapidly to really question Newman’s writings.
Click to expand...

It’s almost 120 years since his death; he was frequently criticised in his lifetime; there were 68 years between his death & the opening of his cause in 1958. There’s a an extensive literature on him in English, French & German at least. So it can hardly be said there has not been time for any doctrinal shortcomings not to be noticed.​

His whole theory of the development of Christian Doctrine ( according to his book on the subject) was condemned by St. Pius X but I wonder why more traditionalist don’t bring this up?

I find it scandalous to canonize a man whose theories have practically destroyed the Church!!!
Click to expand...

Because it was not his form of the theory (or doctrine) of development that was condemned. He and the so-called Modernists had entirely different theories of the development of doctrine - is is clear from comparing them. If his is objectionable, no argument from a supposed likeness to the theory condemned can be used against his, whatever other arguments might be.​

An idea of his which he put forward in 1884, relating to Biblical inerrancy, was condemned, not as his but by implication, in 1893, in “Providentissimus Deus”. That’s common knowledge - and it did not prevent his Cause being undertaken. It is simply not true that his “theories have practically destroyed the Church”. That is all that can be said about that - it is not true.

If this issue is worrying you, why not get in touch Fr. Ian Ker ?
Fr. Ker is well known for his work on Newman’s life & thought. And a brief history of Newman’s Cause can be found at:
 
**
Gottle_of_Geer said:

It’s almost 120 years since his death; he was frequently criticised in his lifetime; there were 68 years between his death & the opening of his cause in 1958. There’s a an extensive literature on him in English, French & German at least. So it can hardly be said there has not been time for any doctrinal shortcomings not to be noticed.​

Because it was not his form of the theory (or doctrine) of development that was condemned. He and the so-called Modernists had entirely different theories of the development of doctrine - is is clear from comparing them. If his is objectionable, no argument from a supposed likeness to the theory condemned can be used against his, whatever other arguments might be.​

An idea of his which he put forward in 1884, relating to Biblical inerrancy, was condemned, not as his but by implication, in 1893, in “Providentissimus Deus”. That’s common knowledge - and it did not prevent his Cause being undertaken. It is simply not true that his “theories have practically destroyed the Church”. That is all that can be said about that - it is not true.

If this issue is worrying you, why not get in touch Fr. Ian Ker ?
Click to expand...
Fr. Ker is well known for his work on Newman’s life & thought. And a brief history of Newman’s Cause can be found at:
I will try to contact Fr. Ker thank you. I have met him several times but at the time I only had a feeling that something in Newman wasn’t right. After reading more I now feel Newman, possibly unintentionally, is the foundation for Modernistic thought still present in the Church,
But even if there were criticisms, that doesn’t mean a complete assault has been launched like the old “devils advocate” would do in former centuries. Here is a link and a good critique of his book “Essay in the Development of Christian Doctrine” :

**"An example of his confused thinking is that Newman mixes up in the same category : Christian-- doctrine, theology, and discipline, — matters by their nature are distinct, and never confused by Catholic doctors, — this is why it is difficult to use expressed quotations to determine his exact meaning.
Newman’s false premise is: Explaining the differences of doctrine which the Catholic Church presents today, from the doctrine presented by the primitive Church. He does not anywhere draw up a list or give us a formal statement of these variations and differences; but assumes there has been.

He assumes that there is a need to explain changes in doctrine and dogma by his theory of “developments.” Remember his book is not “Development of Christian Theology” or " Development of Christian Discipline" but “Development of Christian Doctrine”, that a doctrine or dogma can change from one meaning to another was condemned by Pope Pius IX, in the First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”
– but later this was more clearly condemned by Pope Pius X in Lamentabili Sane, July 3, 1907, # 21: “Revelation, constituting the object of the Catholic faith, was not completed **with the Apostles. --condemned.” **
catholicvox.blogspot.com/2009/07/john-henry-newmans-essay-on-development.html
 
I thought beatification had a lot more to do with miracles (both before and after their death) than their theology.
 
I will try to contact Fr. Ker thank you. I have met him several times but at the time I only had a feeling that something in Newman wasn’t right. After reading more I now feel Newman, possibly unintentionally, is the foundation for Modernistic thought still present in the Church,
**It’s a good thing that the Church has you, treba, to catch things all the theologians who are actually minutely studying Newman’s life, miracles, and corpus of his works have missed. **
 
treba said:
**

I will try to contact Fr. Ker thank you. I have met him several times but at the time I only had a feeling that something in Newman wasn’t right. After reading more I now feel Newman, possibly unintentionally, is the foundation for Modernistic thought still present in the Church,
But even if there were criticisms, that doesn’t mean a complete assault has been launched like the old “devils advocate” would do in former centuries. Here is a link and a good critique of his book “Essay in the Development of Christian Doctrine” :**

**"An example of his confused thinking is that Newman mixes up in the same category : Christian-- doctrine, theology, and discipline, — matters by their nature are distinct, and never confused by Catholic doctors, — this is why it is difficult to use expressed quotations to determine his exact meaning.
Newman’s false premise is: Explaining the differences of doctrine which the Catholic Church presents today, from the doctrine presented by the primitive Church. He does not anywhere draw up a list or give us a formal statement of these variations and differences; but assumes there has been.

He assumes that there is a need to explain changes in doctrine and dogma by his theory of “developments.” Remember his book is not “Development of Christian Theology” or " Development of Christian Discipline" but “Development of Christian Doctrine”, that a doctrine or dogma can change from one meaning to another was condemned by Pope Pius IX, in the First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”
– but later this was more clearly condemned by Pope Pius X in Lamentabili Sane, July 3, 1907, # 21: “Revelation, constituting the object of the Catholic faith, was not completed **with the Apostles. --condemned.”
catholicvox.blogspot.com/2009/07/john-henry-newmans-essay-on-development.html
Click to expand...
Please give us a direct quote from Newman that you would deem heretical.
 
Rogerteder said:
Please give us a direct quote from Newman that you would deem heretical.
Click to expand...
“We shall find ourselves unable, 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,…"(pg.107 from: An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)

Sorry this is clearly should be enough to condemn his whole theory, because this is the essence of why he wrote his essay in the first place.

Pope Pius X condemned his idea in Lamentabili Sane, July 3, 1907-- #21: “Revelation, constituting the object of the Catholic faith, was not completed with the Apostles.” --condemned.
 
treba said:
“We shall find ourselves unable, 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,…"(pg.107 from: An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)

Sorry this is clearly should be enough to condemn his whole theory, because this is the essence of why he wrote his essay in the first place.

Pope Pius X condemned his idea in Lamentabili Sane, July 3, 1907-- #21: “Revelation, constituting the object of the Catholic faith, was not completed with the Apostles.” --condemned.
Click to expand...
Do you have an official Church condemnation of Newman’s use of the phrase “growth of doctrine” to mean the same thing as “Addition to Revelation”? Conclusions being made by a random blog site on the Internet with a clear bias in favor of certain ideas (Vatican II was a failure, only water baptism is valid, etc) are hardly an official condemnation from the Church. It looks more to me like an official condemnation OF the Church.

Even if such a condemnation exists, we would then have to accept that such a person can still become a saint. We either trust the Church to know what she’s doing or we don’t.
 
Alindawyl said:
Do you have an official Church condemnation of Newman’s use of the phrase “growth of doctrine” to mean the same thing as “Addition to Revelation”? Conclusions being made by a random blog site on the Internet with a clear bias in favor of certain ideas (Vatican II was a failure, only water baptism is valid, etc) are hardly an official condemnation from the Church. It looks more to me like an official condemnation OF the Church.

Even if such a condemnation exists, we would then have to accept that such a person can still become a saint. We either trust the Church to know what she’s doing or we don’t.
Click to expand...
Good observations Alindawyl. If “growth of doctrine” means the same thing as “addition to revelation”, it would seem that St. Pius X was dangerously near to condemning the First Vatican Council along with Newman:

May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding. Vatican Council I, Session 3, Ch. 4, para. 14, Apr. 24, 1870

This is in the context of true development of Catholic theology, such as what took place at the Council when the infallibility of the Pope was formally defined. Newman could see historically that there was an advancement in understanding within the Church but he realized that there was always the danger of corruption. Heresies while a disturbance to the faith, also present the need for refinement and examination that result in growth in the Church’s corporate understanding of the Apostolic deposit. Newman would have been appalled to have been perceived as being in support of “adding to revelation” because he proposed a theory of development.

His entire theory was to set down strict guidelines whereby one may identify true development from false. I am not saying that his theory is the last word on the subject. But, in his essay written in the 1840’s, he very carefully recognized the teaching which was subsequently declared at Vatican I (1870) whereby the Church acknowledges that our knowledge of the faith will “progress” (Denziger translation) and that it must be an organic growth, from acorn to tree. Perhaps he failed, certainly his thoughts could be refined, but after two readings of his essay, two readings of his apologia, a biography, and several other works, I am quite certain he was an enemy of the liberalism which Pius X was condemning, and sought to find the right balance that would permit true progress without corruption per Vatican I.

Rory
 
treba said:
“We shall find ourselves unable, 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,…"(pg.107 from: An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)

Sorry this is clearly should be enough to condemn his whole theory, because this is the essence of why he wrote his essay in the first place.

Pope Pius X condemned his idea in Lamentabili Sane, July 3, 1907-- #21: “Revelation, constituting the object of the Catholic faith, was not completed with the Apostles.” --condemned.
Click to expand...
treba, if doctrine did not develop after the apostles, then how did the Church come to know with certainty that there was an Immaculate Conception, when the Francicans and Dominicans had argued over that doctrine for centuries?
 
Neil_Anthony said:
treba, if doctrine did not develop after the apostles, then how did the Church come to know with certainty that there was an Immaculate Conception, when the Francicans and Dominicans had argued over that doctrine for centuries?
Click to expand...
Fr Casimir Kucharek, in is book “Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of St John Chrysostom” states that the Greek Orthodox Church totally believed in the Immaculate Conception until the 15th.

The Greek Fathers were one of the greatest supporters of this doctrine as well as liturgy and the iconography, for example the “Dormition” has contained in it the image of Immaculate Conception. This was much like the Greek Church was the holder and defender of the Apostolic tradition of infant baptism.

Look at today the Church has defined 3 times “No salvation outside the Church” clear teaching but most Catholics claim there is salvation outside the Church. Regardless of how you may understand it ask an average Catholic after mass and they will tell you: “yes there is salvation outside the Church” Heck a priest told me 2 months ago that to believe there no salvation outside the Church is heresy --LOL

PS: He made no distinctions like many here on the forums do. He just said "Yes there is salvation outside the Church and to believe otherwise is heresy "

Confusion can happen in the Church but that doesn’t change the fact that we must accept Revelation end with the death of the last Apostle. To believe otherwise was condemned by St. Pius X.

All doctrine has to be Apostolic since the Apostles got the commission ‘to go to the whole world and teach all I have taught you’. Otherwise how could we judge what is true doctrine, if we don’t have an objective standard that a doctrine HAS to be of Apostolic origin to be believed. Popes don’t have “Revelations” like Mormons
 
RoryMcKenzie56 said:
Good observations Alindawyl. If “growth of doctrine” means the same thing as “addition to revelation”, it would seem that St. Pius X was dangerously near to condemning the First Vatican Council along with Newman:

May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding. Vatican Council I, Session 3, Ch. 4, para. 14, Apr. 24, 1870

This is in the context of true development of Catholic theology, such as what took place at the Council when the infallibility of the Pope was formally defined. Newman could see historically that there was an advancement in understanding within the Church but he realized that there was always the danger of corruption. Heresies while a disturbance to the faith, also present the need for refinement and examination that result in growth in the Church’s corporate understanding of the Apostolic deposit. Newman would have been appalled to have been perceived as being in support of “adding to revelation” because he proposed a theory of development.

His entire theory was to set down strict guidelines whereby one may identify true development from false. I am not saying that his theory is the last word on the subject. But, in his essay written in the 1840’s, he very carefully recognized the teaching which was subsequently declared at Vatican I (1870) whereby the Church acknowledges that our knowledge of the faith will “progress” (Denziger translation) and that it must be an organic growth, from acorn to tree. Perhaps he failed, certainly his thoughts could be refined, but after two readings of his essay, two readings of his apologia, a biography, and several other works, I am quite certain he was an enemy of the liberalism which Pius X was condemning, and sought to find the right balance that would permit true progress without corruption per Vatican I.

Rory
Click to expand...
May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding. Vatican Council I, Session 3, Ch. 4, para. 14, Apr. 24, 1870
Click to expand...
You seem to have missed the BUT in the quote. Sure there is development of theology apologetics but not Doctrine. "One Faith One Lord One Baptism’. Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.

I have read Newman’s Book but maybe with a more critical mind.
He definitely thought we create Doctrine as time goes on it is the whole tenor of his book

“That the increase and expansion of the Christian Creed and Ritual, and the variations which have attended the process in the case of individuals and churches, are necessary attendants on any philosophy or policy which takes possession of the intellect and heart, and has had any wide or extended dominion; that, from the nature of the human mind, time is necessary for the full comprehension and perfection of great ideas; and that the highest and most wonderful truths, though communicated once for all to the world by inspired teachers, could not be comprehended all at once by the recipients, but, as received by minds not inspired, and through media which were human, have required only the longer time and the deeper thought for their full elucidation. This may be called the Theory of Developments .”(pg.27)

“…Thus we see how, as time went on, the doctrine of Purgatory was opened upon the apprehension of the church , as a portion or form of penance due for sins committed after baptism: and thus the belief in this doctrine and the practice of infant baptism would grow into general reception together.”(pg. 107)
Pope Pius X condemned his idea in Lamentabili Sane, July 3, 1907–
#22. The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort.–condemned.

He claims that Purgatory was not believed from the beginning. Then why did the Church have masses said for the deceased from the beginning? Why were infants baptised from the beginning of the Church? This is a horse that wont run.

His guidelines for true and false developments were a joke; no sane Catholic could take them seriously.
 
treba said:
Fr Casimir Kucharek, in is book “Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of St John Chrysostom” states that the Greek Orthodox Church totally believed in the Immaculate Conception until the 15th.

The Greek Fathers were one of the greatest supporters of this doctrine as well as liturgy and the iconography, for example the “Dormition” has contained in it the image of Immaculate Conception. This was much like the Greek Church was the holder and defender of the Apostolic tradition of infant baptism.

Look at today the Church has defined 3 times “No salvation outside the Church” clear teaching but most Catholics claim there is salvation outside the Church. Regardless of how you may understand it ask an average Catholic after mass and they will tell you: “yes there is salvation outside the Church” Heck a priest told me 2 months ago that to believe there no salvation outside the Church is heresy --LOL

PS: He made no distinctions like many here on the forums do. He just said "Yes there is salvation outside the Church and to believe otherwise is heresy "

Confusion can happen in the Church but that doesn’t change the fact that we must accept Revelation end with the death of the last Apostle. To believe otherwise was condemned by St. Pius X.

All doctrine has to be Apostolic since the Apostles got the commission ‘to go to the whole world and teach all I have taught you’. Otherwise how could we judge what is true doctrine, if we don’t have an objective standard that a doctrine HAS to be of Apostolic origin to be believed. Popes don’t have “Revelations” like Mormons
Click to expand...
So are you saying that the apostles explicity taught the Immaculate Conception? Or are you saying that it was contained hidden in what the apostles taught, and had to be discovered within the apostolic teaching through theology?
 
treba said:
Look at today the Church has defined 3 times “No salvation outside the Church” clear teaching but most Catholics claim there is salvation outside the Church. Regardless of how you may understand it ask an average Catholic after mass and they will tell you: “yes there is salvation outside the Church” Heck a priest told me 2 months ago that to believe there no salvation outside the Church is heresy --LOL
Click to expand...
Well, are you saying that every single soul in heaven was an official member of the visible Catholic church on earth during his or her life? That there isn’t a single soul in heaven who wasn’t? If the priest thought you meant that, I can see why he would say it was a heresy.

It’s like you’re denying that babies baptized in a protestant church who die before hte age of reason can go to heaven.
 
Since JPII got rid of the “devil’s advocate” I think the saint process may be moving too rapidly to really question Newman’s writings.
The proper name for this official is "Promoter of the Faith."
 
Neil_Anthony said:
Well, are you saying that every single soul in heaven was an official member of the visible Catholic church on earth during his or her life? That there isn’t a single soul in heaven who wasn’t? If the priest thought you meant that, I can see why he would say it was a heresy.

It’s like you’re denying that babies baptized in a protestant church who die before hte age of reason can go to heaven.
Click to expand...
It was just an example of how confusion can rein even among Catholics who believe they are in good faith, even after it has been defined. So therefore it can be understandable that there may have been some Catholics who were confused about doctrines that have not been defined.

Furthermore which Catholic, especially Catholics who support Catholic Answers, can agree with Newman when he claims that Christianity came into existence as an** idea**

The Church came into existence as an institution not as an idea.

Here is Newman:
“Christianity, 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.**

You are Peter on which I will build my CHURCH: not my IDEA
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top