To Cardinal Newman said, "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."

[steve_b]

Well, since this thread won’t die anyway, here are the two things I want to say about it:

1. Cardinal Newman’s statement needs to be read in context, as a refutation of a particular kind of 18th and early-19th-century Protestant “sola scriptura” polemic (and its modern successors). Protestant apologists like Chillingworth had used history to point out apparent contradictions in Catholic tradition, leading to the conclusion that only Scripture was trustworthy. Newman’s point is that the reason they use history in such a negative way is that their own version of Christianity has very little to do with historic Christianity. I think he was right about that. Newman very clearly distinguishes in the Essay between “Protestantism” and “Anglicanism.” He disposes of Protestantism early on in the section that includes this passage. The rest of the Essay is an explanation why “Anglicanism” (the “via media” neo-patristic approach he had championed) isn’t satisfactory either. Most Protestant church historians of my acquaintance are closer to “Anglicanism” than to "Protestantism as Newman defines the terms, because they do draw richly from the pre-Reformation tradition and are generally willing to acknowledge the need to “reform the reform” by bringing Protestantism into a closer relationship with the older Christian traditions. The heirs of Newman’s “Protestants” continue to have the same problem he described–they use history in an ad hoc fashion to criticize Catholicism, but they tend not to be “deep” in it, except perhaps in the history of their own favored tradition (of course this is a generalization and there are exceptions).
2. Michael B said that the Council of Orange essentially taught a Protestant view of salvation. It didn’t. It taught an Augustinian view. There was no mention of sola fide or imputation. Protestant polemicists (especially the Reformed) need to stop playing bait and switch here. Either Augustinian Catholicism is essentially right, which means that imputed righteousness is at best a non-essential theologoumenon, or it’s basically “Papist” and Protestants need to stop appealing to it as if it were on their side. See this letter of Melanchthon to Brenz for a candid admission, in private, by a major Lutheran that Augustinian soteriology did not express the essentials of the Reformation as Melanchthon understood them. To be fair, the Reformed tradition tends to be a bit more genuinely Augustinian, but Calvin made the choice to embrace the Lutheran view on this. (In my opinion, Calvin’s theology often tries to hold together things that don’t really go together. The example most people point to is his Eucharistic theology, which is actually the point where I think this approach is most justified.)

From introduction, section 5 Christianity of History not Protestantism

Newman said “the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.” (section 5)

Newman also credits Gibbon who said “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant" (section 6)

2 very similar statements.

Either way, Newman’s talking about Protestantism regardless of stripe,

 

[Peter_J]

1. Cardinal Newman’s statement needs to be read in context, as a refutation of a particular kind of 18th and early-19th-century Protestant “sola scriptura” polemic (and its modern successors). Protestant apologists like Chillingworth had used history to point out apparent contradictions in Catholic tradition, leading to the conclusion that only Scripture was trustworthy. Newman’s point is that the reason they use history in such a negative way is that their own version of Christianity has very little to do with historic Christianity. I think he was right about that.

 

[Peter_J]

You pose a good point.

Well I’m Catholic.

Emoticon. But anyhow, if I don’t respond or seldom respond after today, it’s nothing personal. Just a change of situation. (We’ll meet again I’m sure.)

 

[steve_b]

This is a good one, I seem to forget about this quote and don’t use it as much as some others when speaking of the evils of division in the Church. *The Greek word used does show the seriousness of it *all.

Romans shows the gravity, Galatians shows the consequence of that sin, should one commit it, and remain in it. Therefore once they know of this sin and its gravity, they need to correct it ( by returning to the Church) or the consequences Paul describes will happen to THEM when they die

 

[MichaelP3]

Romans shows the gravity, Galatians shows the consequence of that sin, should one commit it, and remain in it. Therefore once they know of this sin and its gravity, they need to correct it ( by returning to the Church) or the consequences Paul describes will happen to THEM when they die

At least I am told that the “invincibly ignorant” can still be saved. I sometimes wonder if and when I crossed that line and how doomed I should feel?

 

[steve_b]

Well, since this thread won’t die anyway,

I think it safe to say, It will keep coming up over and over again as long as all these 10’s of thousands of divisions continue
C:

here are the two things I want to say about it:

Newman’s point is that the reason they use history in such a negative way is that their own version of Christianity has very little to do with historic Christianity.

Newman very clearly distinguishes in the Essay between “Protestantism” and “Anglicanism.” He disposes of Protestantism early on in the section that includes this passage. The rest of the Essay is an explanation why “Anglicanism” (the “via media” neo-patristic approach he had championed) isn’t satisfactory either. Most Protestant church historians of my acquaintance are closer to “Anglicanism” than to "Protestantism as Newman defines the terms, because they do draw richly from the pre-Reformation tradition and are generally willing to acknowledge the need to “reform the reform” by bringing Protestantism into a closer relationship with the older Christian traditions.

Just a few thought of my own as well,

Newman in his writings still calls Anglicanism Protestant. Anglicans are just another form of Protestantism

Anglican theory not new see section 4

“Such, then, is the Anglican Church and its * Via Media*, {377} and such the practical application of it; it is an interposition or arbitration between the extreme doctrines of Protestantism on the one hand, and the faith of Rome which Protestantism contradicts on the other. At the same time, though it may be unwilling to allow it, it is, from the nature of the case, but a particular form of Protestantism. I do not say that in secondary principles it may not agree with the Catholic Church; but, its essential idea being that she has gone into error, whereas the essential idea of Catholicism is the Church’s infallibility, the Via Media is really nothing else than Protestant.”
C:

To be fair, the Reformed tradition tends to be a bit more genuinely Augustinian, but Calvin made the choice to embrace the Lutheran view on this. (In my opinion, Calvin’s theology often tries to hold together things that don’t really go together. The example most people point to is his Eucharistic theology, which is actually the point where I think this approach is most justified.)

I think Augustine would object strenuously to being tied in any way to such rebels

Newman knew Protestantism was error, and is not an equal to the Catholic Church. And he knew that scripture condemned division from the Church.

#[197 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14165126&postcount=197)

**Also

**Church Tradition has taught that condemnation from the beginning as well

Example

**Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch from ~69 a.d. to ~107 a.d. was ordained by the apostles, and was a direct disciple of St John. In Antioch the disciples were first called Christian Acts 11:26 . And Ignatius in his writings uses both “Christian” and “Catholic Church” in his writings. **

• St Ignatius,
• uses Christian (ch 2)
• uses Catholic Church (ch 8) Epistle to the Smyrnæans of which schismatics won’t be going to heaven Epistle to the Philadelphians (ch 3)
• Ignatius was Bishop before Acts and Revelation are written
• As an aside, There is no expiration date to that warning, that condemnation for division, or it’s consequence for one’s soul

Also

the CCC doesn’t shrink from, nor fail to continually teach this truth ** 846**

There is no expiration date to that.

 

[steve_b]

At least I am told that the “invincibly ignorant” can still be saved. I sometimes wonder if and when I crossed that line and how doomed I should feel?

looking at this in general, not pointing any fingers or making any personal judgements

Re: Invincible ignorance#14

also consider one who is guilty of feigned ignorance1859

 

[LutheranScholar]

Well I’m Catholic.

Emoticon. But anyhow, if I don’t respond or seldom respond after today, it’s nothing personal. Just a change of situation. (We’ll meet again I’m sure.)

May God bless your situation and may this new beginning be one clothed in grace .
If we don’t meet on the Nets, then we shall surely meet in Heaven ( and maybe have a good laugh over all that’s transpired on Earth ).

 

[Peter_J]

May God bless your situation and may this new beginning be one clothed in grace .
If we don’t meet on the Nets, then we shall surely meet in Heaven ( and maybe have a good laugh over all that’s transpired on Earth ).

Thanks. And I’m glad someone appreciates the humor.

Btw, isn’t it funny how sometimes a “period of little posting” actually starts out with more posting?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

3 guarantees in life…

1.) Death
2.) Taxes
3.) Eternal life for this thread

 

[MichaelP3]

looking at this in general, not pointing any fingers or making any personal judgements

Re: Invincible ignorance#14

also consider one who is guilty of feigned ignorance1859

Oh no worries, no personal judgements received. I felt that ever since I picked up the Catechism a few years ago.

I know about “feigned ignorance”, didn’t even think about it when I was typing. I am nor pretending anything for whatever reason. I do hope that was clear to whoever has ever talked to me (except maybe some who didn’t like me). Rather the Catechism would not condemn me if I am ignorant. So where does this start or end? When do I get to that point where I am no longer ignorant. Some would have arguments that “but if I understood, I would agree”. Now I have been trying to understand for quite some time, Am I still ignorant as long as I don’t agree? Or do I become understanding and then just damned? By the Catechism definition I should feel damned. Because I am no longer ignorant, but some would say I still am because I don’t agree? Pretty confusing not?

 

[MichaelP3]

3 guarantees in life…

1.) Death
2.) Taxes
3.) Eternal life for this thread

I feel you. Got my yearly bonus today and bammmmm, 40% TAX. Oh and this thread

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I feel you. Got my yearly bonus today and bammmmm, 40% TAX

Ouch!!

 

[steve_b]

Oh no worries, no personal judgements received. I felt that ever since I picked up the Catechism a few years ago.

I know about “feigned ignorance”, didn’t even think about it when I was typing. I am nor pretending anything for whatever reason. I do hope that was clear to whoever has ever talked to me (except maybe some who didn’t like me). Rather the Catechism would not condemn me if I am ignorant. So where does this start or end? When do I get to that point where I am no longer ignorant. Some would have arguments that “but if I understood, I would agree”. Now I have been trying to understand for quite some time, Am I still ignorant as long as I don’t agree? Or do I become understanding and then just damned? By the Catechism definition I should feel damned. Because I am no longer ignorant, but some would say I still am because I don’t agree? Pretty confusing not?

How about this for an answer. Again, no finger pointing, no accusations, I’m just thinking out loud, observing a story we all know

Absent a person having low I.Q. or any other such mental disability, so we don’t even go there, or entertain such a possibility…

I would use the “Bread of Life Discourse” as a response

Jn 6:
"41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” 43 Jesus answered them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. 46 Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living breadc] which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”d] 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” 59 This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper′na-um. 60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?e] 63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that should betray him. 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” 66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. "

Tough crowd!

Was Jesus a lousy teacher? No. Was He talking over His disciples heads? No. Were they not smart enough to connect the dots Jesus is making? No. They followed Him, saw His miracles, etc etc

So what happened? Why did they challenge Jesus then leave Him not to follow Him anymore?

Jesus said He knew in advance many of His disciples had no faith. And that’s it. Period dot end of sentence. Simple answer. No faith? Not even God almighty teaching them face to face would/could convince them.

Thomas Aquinas made this statement about faith and understanding.

He wrote

*For one who has faith no explanation is necessary, for one with no faith no explanation is sufficient

 

[Peter_J]

Pretty confusing no?

It usually is if you starting including all kinds of "Some would say -------"s. Hmmm.

 

[Contarini]

Newman in his writings still calls Anglicanism Protestant. Anglicans are just another form of Protestantism

Of course he does later on. But we’re not talking about later on. We’re talking about the Essay, in which he was writing himself out of Anglicanism–he was still technically Anglican when he wrote it (almost exactly the position I’m in at the moment, in fact).

I think Augustine would object strenuously to being tied in any way to such rebels

Augustine’s opinions are not the question here, but the Reformed use of those opinions.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

At least I am told that the “invincibly ignorant” can still be saved. I sometimes wonder if and when I crossed that line and how doomed I should feel?

You would feel a growing sense of despair, which you would try to mask.

At least that has been my experience.

But perhaps I shouldn’t generalize from it too much. Kierkegaard says that the true despair is not to know you are in despair.

So perhaps a growing sense of confidence, and of contempt for those silly Catholics, would be a more ominous sign.

Edwin

 

[steve_b]

Of course he does later on. But we’re not talking about later on.* We’re talking about the Essay, in which he was writing himself out of Anglicanism*–he was still technically Anglican when he wrote it (almost exactly the position I’m in at the moment, in fact).

Aren’t you trying to make a distinction without a difference?
C:

Augustine’s opinions are not the question here, but the Reformed use of those opinions.

Edwin

Such as?

 

[Contarini]

Aren’t you trying to make a distinction without a difference?

No. Not unless you think that Cardinal Newman, like God, is somehow outside of time

To know how he used the term at the point when he wrote the Essay, we need to consult things he was writing at that time.

It makes sense that after years of being Catholic he would be more likely to lump Anglicans together with Protestants.

The whole idea that there’s something called “Anglicanism” that is radically other than “Protestantism” was invented by Newman and his friends. Unfortunately, they succeeded in persuading a lot of other Anglicans of this thesis, even though Newman came to disbelieve it. But while writing the Essay he was clearly distinguishing between the two, as the passage we’re discussing shows. If you keep reading in the Essay, you’ll see him speak about “Anglicanism” very differently than he’s been speaking about “Protestantism.”

Such as?

Predestination, obviously, and the concept that people cannot choose good without the help of God’s grace, which comes only to some people. The Reformed are more Augustinian than the Lutherans inasmuch as sola fide is placed more firmly within the framework of “sola gratia” and the Reformed are more willing to talk about sanctification as something that is also part of salvation, though not in any sense a cause of justification. Calvin talks about God accepting our works because he accepts us through Christ, which is very Augustinian. And in general, he defers to Augustine theologically (as do other Reformed figures) far more than Luther or Melanchthon do.

 

[steve_b]

No. Not unless you think that Cardinal Newman, like God, is somehow outside of time

To know how he used the term at the point when he wrote the Essay, we need to consult things he was writing at that time.

It makes sense that after years of being Catholic he would be more likely to lump Anglicans together with Protestants. The whole idea that there’s something called “Anglicanism” that is radically other than “Protestantism” was invented by Newman and his friends.

Newman’s Essay (Development of Doctrine) began in the autum of 1844. Newman converted to Catholicism in 1845.

regarding Newman’s thought on Anglicanism,

The following is from Life of Cardinal Newman, Chapter 3 [covers the period in which this book was written—**NR]

“Newman himself has told us that he was already on the death-bed of his Anglican life; and we may perhaps continue the metaphor by saying that by the summer of 1845 he had reached the end of the death-struggle. The rest was the peaceful awaiting of the final deliverance. He was between two lives. His Anglican life was over; his life in the Catholic Church had not begun. His connection with Oxford affairs and with the Movement was at an end. Of Oxford men {83} only intimate friends now saw him. He had begun to write his work on the ‘Development of Christian Doctrine’ in the previous autumn. It soon absorbed his whole mind, and he resolved to complete it before finally effecting the change of Communion. He made no plans for the future. He lived externally as one lives from day to day in the sick chamber—passing an uneventful existence, seeing a few familiar friends, and saying his prayers. Both Anglican friends and the Catholics at Oscott were prepared to receive any day the news of his departure. But the death-bed, as often happens in the literal passing of a life, was so unexpectedly prolonged as to try the patience of onlookers.”…

some added reading

My Mind as a Catholic: Part I

My Mind as a Catholic: Part II
C:

The Reformed are more Augustinian than the Lutherans inasmuch as sola fide is placed more firmly within the framework of “sola gratia” and the Reformed are more willing to talk about sanctification as something that is also part of salvation, though not in any sense a cause of justification. Calvin talks about God accepting our works because he accepts us through Christ, which is very Augustinian. And in general, he defers to Augustine theologically (as do other Reformed figures) far more than Luther or Melanchthon do.

Are you thinking of this perhaps? Was St. Augustine a Proto-Protestant? , (3 min video)