Newman's beatification is disturbing

[treba]

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?

I am agreeing with St. Pius X in Lamentabili Sane, July 3, 1907- #54. “Dogmas, Sacraments and hierarchy, both their notion and reality, are only interpretations and evolutions of the Christian intelligence which have increased and perfected by an external series of additions the little germ ( also could be translated - “seed”) latent in the Gospel.”–condemned

" All Catholic doctrine, as held by the Roman Church, has been the result of one continued law of growth, and has therefore the unity of nature and of life : its development has been like that of the Church itself, ’ the least of all seeds, but when it is grown the greatest among herbs’; or, like the growth of grace in each individual soul, ’ first the blade, then the ear, and after that the full corn in the ear.’"— p. 53.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

I am agreeing with St. Pius X in Lamentabili Sane, July 3, 1907- #54. **“Dogmas, Sacraments and hierarchy, both their notion and reality, are only interpretations and evolutions of the Christian intelligence which have increased and perfected by an external series of additions the little germ ( also could be translated - “seed”) **latent in the Gospel.”–condemned

" All Catholic doctrine, as held by the Roman Church, has been the result of one continued law of growth, and has therefore the unity of nature and of life : its development has been like that of the Church itself, ’ the least of all seeds, but when it is grown the greatest among herbs’; or, like the growth of grace in each individual soul, ’ first the blade, then the ear, and after that the full corn in the ear.’"— p. 53.

Hi treba.

It stings to be called insane, and I would suggest in future that if you truly think your interlocutor is so, you should cease trying to reason with him. Nevertheless this Catholic who had apparently lost his sense of reason begins to see your point by means of your argument. Go figure. I can now see why you see a conflict between the words of St. Pius X, and the theory of Newman. Obviously Newman is fallible. Would you say that Lamentabile Sane is guarded by the charism of infallibility?

I hope you don’t take this the wrong way. It would be with great difficulty that I would be comfortable myself with suggesting that Pope St. Pius X, whose prayers I occasionally invoke, was mistaken in this matter. I am sincerely asking for your help

Yours Very Truly,

Rory McKenzie

 

[LilyM]

I am agreeing with St. Pius X in Lamentabili Sane, July 3, 1907- #54. **“Dogmas, Sacraments and hierarchy, both their notion and reality, are only interpretations and evolutions of the Christian intelligence which have increased and perfected by an external series of additions the little germ ( also could be translated - “seed”) **latent in the Gospel.”–condemned

" All Catholic doctrine, as held by the Roman Church, has been the result of one continued law of growth, and has therefore the unity of nature and of life : its development has been like that of the Church itself, ’ the least of all seeds, but when it is grown the greatest among herbs’; or, like the growth of grace in each individual soul, ’ first the blade, then the ear, and after that the full corn in the ear.’"— p. 53.

Firstly - I’m pretty sure Newman would never have dreamt of proposing that any more by way of ‘development’, ‘addition’ ‘illumination’ ‘clarification’ or whatever else you want to call it, has occured to the Apostolic deposit of faith than the Church itself has acknowledged in the proclamation of such dogmas as the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption.

Secondly - with all due respect, you’re confused about what beatification actually means. St Augustine didn’t believe in the Immaculate Conception, neither did one or two other Doctors of the Church. Sainthood, even Doctorhood, doesn’t mean infallibility by any stretch of the imagination.

Except in the case of those Doctors who were also Popes (namely Sts Leo the Great and Gregory the Great), and even them only when they were teaching ex cathedra.

 

[rjs1]

Firstly - I’m pretty sure Newman would never have dreamt of proposing that any more by way of ‘development’, ‘addition’ ‘illumination’ ‘clarification’ or whatever else you want to call it, has occured to the Apostolic deposit of faith than the Church itself has acknowledged in the proclamation of such dogmas as the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption.

Secondly - with all due respect, you’re confused about what beatification actually means. St Augustine didn’t believe in the Immaculate Conception, neither did one or two other Doctors of the Church. Sainthood, even Doctorhood, doesn’t mean infallibility by any stretch of the imagination.

Except in the case of those Doctors who were also Popes (namely Sts Leo the Great and Gregory the Great), and even them only when they were teaching ex cathedra.

A priest I know well has written Catechetical books about the Catholic Faith which are 100% orthodox and absolutely faithful to Church teaching. This priest so respects Newman that he named his teaching centre after him.

I do not believe for one moment that this priest, who has a profound understanding of the faith, would greatly respect Cardinal Newman if he thought he was heterodox.

I rather think what we may be dealing with, is a misunderstanding of Newman’s writing. I do not believe the Church would canonise a heretic, so I think we can safely let Mother Church handle this one.

I will read more of what Newman said and, if I get a chance (the priest is retired and some distance away), ask the priest to explain it to me.

 

[treba]

A priest I know well has written Catechetical books about the Catholic Faith which are 100% orthodox and absolutely faithful to Church teaching. This priest so respects Newman that he named his teaching centre after him.

I do not believe for one moment that this priest, who has a profound understanding of the faith, would greatly respect Cardinal Newman if he thought he was heterodox.

I rather think what we may be dealing with, is a misunderstanding of Newman’s writing. I do not believe the Church would canonise a heretic, so I think we can safely let Mother Church handle this one.

I will read more of what Newman said and, if I get a chance (the priest is retired and some distance away), ask the priest to explain it to me.

I never called him a heretic he may have been sincere but wrong. To be a heretic one would have some bad will involved.

 

[treba]

A priest I know well has written Catechetical books about the Catholic Faith which are 100% orthodox and absolutely faithful to Church teaching. This priest so respects Newman that he named his teaching centre after him.

I do not believe for one moment that this priest, who has a profound understanding of the faith, would greatly respect Cardinal Newman if he thought he was heterodox.

I rather think what we may be dealing with, is a misunderstanding of Newman’s writing. I do not believe the Church would canonise a heretic, so I think we can safely let Mother Church handle this one.

I will read more of what Newman said and, if I get a chance (the priest is retired and some distance away), ask the priest to explain it to me.

Would your priest friend agree with Newman on this point 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)
or would he agree with St. Pius X?

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.**

Jesus said :You are Peter on which I will build my CHURCH: not my IDEA

 

[Alindawyl]

Treba, your arguments are entirely based on the opinion of that blog you originally quoted. You keep doing a cut/paste of the statements on that blog that, in their opinion, Newman’s work is arguing for things which were condemned by Lamentabili Sane and that somehow such a thing, if true, should be an impediment to canonization.

If you wish to base your critique on an official condemnation from the Church, then it might have some traction. Instead you’re basing it on the condemnation of an Internet blog which is of the opinion that salvation is only possible by water baptism (ie, there is no such thing as baptism of blood or baptism of desire), that Vatican II was a mistake, that no salvation outside the Church means no salvation without officially registered membership in the Church… does that blog place itself above the Church in authority? Is it inspired by the Holy Spirit to lead us to Jesus?

And again, even if there is some official Church condemnation of Newman’s work, every saint led a less than perfect life and made mistakes of some sort. With the exception of the few named angels such as St. Michael, all saints are humans. King David was an adulterer and murderer. Those actions would be condemned in any age by any right-thinking person, yet he’s still venerated as a saint. This speaks in a strong way to the mercy of God when we truly repent of our sins, while sites like that blog you seem to treat as holy writ appear to be more concerned with the judgement of God on anyone who doesn’t fit within the narrow constraints of a legalistic phariseeism…

Who am I to tell God he can’t use a murderer or a heretic or a liar or a pedophile or a thief or anyone he wants as an instrument of his will?

Do we trust the Church to know what she’s doing, or don’t we?

 

[rjs1]

Would your priest friend agree with Newman on this point 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)
or would he agree with St. Pius X?

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.**

Jesus said :You are Peter on which I will build my CHURCH: not my IDEA

When I get a chance I will ask him this very question.

 

[rjs1]

Treba,

Are you aware that on 10 March 1908 Pope St Pius X sent a letter to the Bishop of Limerick in which he specifically defended Cardinal Newman and said that his writings were NOT oposed to the Pope’s teaching?

If you want a copy of that letter I can give you a link.

 

[Rogerteder]

“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.

No sorry the dogma that public revelation stopped at the death of the last apostle doesnt mean doctrine didnt develop—not chaNGE–they cnt change in their essential meaning–however the way we explain them and the way they are understood can change----Neuman’s quote no where says dogma can change–sorry

 

[Rogerteder]

I will concede that Newman may have chose his words better----and you may be justified in questioning this comment However, i still think it falls short of heresey–“growth” doesnt denote change in essential meaning

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Treba,

Are you aware that on 10 March 1908 Pope St Pius X sent a letter to the Bishop of Limerick in which he specifically defended Cardinal Newman and said that his writings were NOT oposed to the Pope’s teaching?

If you want a copy of that letter I can give you a link.

Hey rjs. I would appreciate the link very much. Thanks.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

Do we trust the Church to know what she’s doing, or don’t we?

This is crux of the matter.

We should also remember that the Second Ecumenical Synod of the Vatican seems to firmly teach that doctrine does develop:

This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. (5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.

-Dei Verbum 8

This is what Ven. Cardinal Newman espoused, and he has been vindicated on this by far better authorities than the blog the OP cited.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Do we trust the Church to know what she’s doing, or don’t we?

I would add one further thing.

Do we trust the Church to be guided by the Holy Spirit in knowing what she’s doing or do we not trust in God.

Because in essence, for me, trust in the Church is Trust in God.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

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.

This is very misleading. The Churches of the East can be said to have always believed in the “Immaculate Conception” in that they have always expressed through the Eastern Fathers and in the Eastern Liturgies and devotions that the All-Holy Theotokos was “Panaghia, sinless, and stainless.”

However the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as expressed when it was infallibly promulgated is a testament, in and of itself, to the development of doctrine. The promulgated dogma is, by it’s own wording, very Latin and scholastic in expression. Further, the way it is explained among us Romans is in a scholastic manner. In the Eastern Catholic Churches, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is believed as in the West, however the scholastic and Latin terms and expressions are not adhered to as they are among us Romans. They express the Immaculate Conception is a different way, primarily because they express the dogma of Original Sin in a different way.

This doesn’t mean they don’t believe in the Immaculate Conception, it simply means that they are not required to express their faith in accord with Latin terms.

This is one of the reasons why union with the Orthodox on this issue can become sticky, because there is a fear in the East that the Latin expression will be absorbed or forced upon the expressions of the Greco-Slavs.

Finally, the icon in question cannot be said to be a sole and explicit reference to the Immaculate Conception. It is first and foremost a window into the mystery of the Dormition, and the image of Christ holding the infant soul of the Theotokos is first and foremost an affirmation of the Assumption (i.e. Christ taking His Mother, body and soul, into Heaven after she had fallen asleep).

dce.oca.org/assets/files/resources/The_Dormition.jpg

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

I would add one further thing.

Do we trust the Church to be guided by the Holy Spirit in knowing what she’s doing or do we not trust in God.

Because in essence, for me, trust in the Church is Trust in God.

 

[redrosetea]

I would add one further thing.

Do we trust the Church to be guided by the Holy Spirit in knowing what she’s doing or do we not trust in God.

Because in essence, for me, trust in the Church is Trust in God.

Exactly…some feel they know more than Rome on any given subject

 

[Alindawyl]

I would add one further thing.

Do we trust the Church to be guided by the Holy Spirit in knowing what she’s doing or do we not trust in God.

Because in essence, for me, trust in the Church is Trust in God.

Exactly. That’s the sentiment behind my statement. I trust the Church because she was established by Jesus and is guided by the Holy Spirit. Without that divine guidance, the Church would be just another human institution.

 

[treba]

Hi treba.

It stings to be called insane, and I would suggest in future that if you truly think your interlocutor is so, you should cease trying to reason with him. Nevertheless this Catholic who had apparently lost his sense of reason begins to see your point by means of your argument. Go figure. I can now see why you see a conflict between the words of St. Pius X, and the theory of Newman. Obviously Newman is fallible. Would you say that Lamentabile Sane is guarded by the charism of infallibility?

I hope you don’t take this the wrong way. It would be with great difficulty that I would be comfortable myself with suggesting that Pope St. Pius X, whose prayers I occasionally invoke, was mistaken in this matter. I am sincerely asking for your help

Yours Very Truly,

Rory McKenzie

I don’t remember calling anyone insane, but if I implied that I apologize for that.

I think Pius X Syllabus meets the criteria of infallibility not by the pronouncements themselves but because to hold the opposite would be to go against established dogma and doctrine. Plus Pius X confirms these points in more detail in his encyclical and Oath Against Modernism

 

[treba]

Treba, your arguments are entirely based on the opinion of that blog you originally quoted. You keep doing a cut/paste of the statements on that blog that, in their opinion, Newman’s work is arguing for things which were condemned by Lamentabili Sane and that somehow such a thing, if true, should be an impediment to canonization.

If you wish to base your critique on an official condemnation from the Church, then it might have some traction. Instead you’re basing it on the condemnation of an Internet blog which is of the opinion that salvation is only possible by water baptism (ie, there is no such thing as baptism of blood or baptism of desire), that Vatican II was a mistake, that no salvation outside the Church means no salvation without officially registered membership in the Church… does that blog place itself above the Church in authority? Is it inspired by the Holy Spirit to lead us to Jesus?

And again, even if there is some official Church condemnation of Newman’s work, every saint led a less than perfect life and made mistakes of some sort. With the exception of the few named angels such as St. Michael, all saints are humans. King David was an adulterer and murderer. Those actions would be condemned in any age by any right-thinking person, yet he’s still venerated as a saint. This speaks in a strong way to the mercy of God when we truly repent of our sins, while sites like that blog you seem to treat as holy writ appear to be more concerned with the judgement of God on anyone who doesn’t fit within the narrow constraints of a legalistic phariseeism…

Who am I to tell God he can’t use a murderer or a heretic or a liar or a pedophile or a thief or anyone he wants as an instrument of his will?

Do we trust the Church to know what she’s doing, or don’t we?

This is a typical ad hominem attack. Why does it matter who is pointing out these problems?

Are the quotes from Newman Book? Yes.

Do they go against the teaching of St. Pius X? Yes.

Therefore Newman’s teachings in this book on Doctrine should be seen as false