Posted on 05/15/2015 2:05:08 PM PDT by RnMomof7
The nineteenth century witnessed the conversions of two prominent Anglican clergymen to Roman Catholicism. Both men would ultimately become cardinals in the Roman Church, and both men would profoundly influence Roman Catholic theology. The first was John Henry Newman (1801–1890). The second was Henry Edward Manning (1808–1892). Newman is probably most well known for his involvement in the high church Oxford Movement and for his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845). Manning is best known for his advocacy of social justice and for his strong support of the doctrine of papal infallibility following his conversion to Rome. He played a key role in the First Vatican Council (1869–1870).
What I find most interesting about these two men is their approach to history and what it tells us about the Roman Catholic Church. Cardinal Newman famously said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.” He believed that if one compared the teaching and practice of both Protestantism and Rome to the teaching and practice of the early church, one would be forced to conclude that Rome was the true heir of the early church. Of course, he had to posit a rather complex theory of doctrinal development in order to make such an idea plausible to himself and others not already inclined to agree. But be that as it may, Newman believed that the study of history supported the claims of Rome.
Cardinal Manning, on the other hand, claimed that for a Roman Catholic, “the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy” and that “the only divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour” (The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost). In other words, to examine church history in order to find support for the claims of Rome is to demonstrate a lack of faith in the Church of Rome. It is to place human reason over and above faith. If you want to know what the early church taught, all you have to do is look at what the Roman Catholic Church teaches today.
The Roman Catholic theologian Walter Burghardt expresses the same view in connection with the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary, which was defined as dogma in 1950:
“A valid argument for a dogmatic tradition, for the Church’s teaching in the past can be constructed from her teaching in the present. And that is actually the approach theology took to the definability of the assumption before 1st November 1950. It began with a fact: the current consensus, in the Church teaching and in the Church taught, that the Corporeal Assumption was revealed by God. If that is true, if that is the teaching of the magisterium of the moment, if that is the Church’s tradition, then it was always part and parcel of the Church’s teaching, part and parcel of tradition.”
Manning and Burghardt are simply being consistent with belief in the infallibility of Rome and of the pope. If the church is infallible, appeals to history, tradition, and Scripture are superfluous. What the church teaches now must be what the church has always taught, regardless of what the actual evidence from Scripture and/or tradition might say.
Rome truly has no other choice if she wishes to maintain her current beliefs and practices. If she were to appeal to something like the Vincentian Canon (namely, that the true faith, the true interpretation of Scripture, is that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all), the pope would have to give up all claims to supremacy over the entire church, and the bulk of Roman peculiarities and practice would have to be jettisoned.
Cardinal Newman recognized the obvious difference between the current Roman Church and the early church. He was too deep in history not to see it. He had to develop his famous idea of doctrinal development to explain it. He argued that all the later Roman doctrines and practices were “hidden” in the church from the beginning. They were made explicit over time under the guidance of the Spirit. But the problem that many Roman Catholics fail to see is that there is a difference between development and contradiction. It is one thing to use different language to teach something the church has always taught (e.g., the “Trinity”). It is another thing altogether to begin teaching something that the church always denied (e.g., papal supremacy or infallibility). Those doctrines in particular were built on multitudes of forgeries.
Cardinal Manning solved the problem by treating any appeal to history as treason. He called for blind faith in the papacy and magisterium. Such might have been possible had the fruits of the papacy over 1,500 years not consistently been the precise opposite of the fruit of the Spirit (Matt. 7:16).
Cardinal Newman said that to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant. The truth is that to be deep in real history, as opposed to Rome’s whitewashed, revisionist, and often forged history, is to cease to be a Roman Catholic.
Perfectly good theology IF the model is NT teaching and practice. In reality, ancient Roman culture was deeply into prayers to ancestors, etc., and after Christianity finally started getting some acceptance in the higher classes (post Second Century), more of these pre-Christian practices became acceptable among Christians. The theology justifying it came later, as a rationalization added on.
BTW, I've looked at the soul-sleep issue and while I respect the sincerity of those who believe it, I don't think it squares with Scripture. I accept, and I think many evangelicals also accept, that believers are alive in some sense before the Lord even before their resurrection. That is not the point of disagreement.
Rather, the real question is what is our model for prayer? To whom should we pray? If we were ever instructed in the Scriptures to pray to deceased believers, we would have no disagreement whatsoever. But all the instruction on prayer as a spiritual exercise, 100% of it, directs that prayer to no one but God.
For example, sometimes this passage is used to support the practice:
And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.
(Revelation 5:8)
The premise is that "the prayers of saints" in the golden vials are being intercepted by the 24 elders, who are alleged to be deceased saints charged with conveying these prayers to God. But there is nothing here saying these 24 elders are deceased saints. Revelation is full of symbolic imagery. A common view of the 24 elders is that they represent the full community of old and new covenant believers (twelve tribes of Israel + twelve apostles = 24 elders), and that therefore the prayers they are offering to God are really their own, as the elders represent in one form what the prayers represent in a different form, which would be a perfectly reasonable symbolic method.
Furthermore, we know that even living saints, i.e., any person set aside to God through the Holy Spirit simply by believing in Jesus, are said to be seated in heavenly places, as here:
But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:And who is Paul addressing here? Ordinary, living believers. And yet in Christ we already are seated in Heaven.
(Ephesians 2:4-6)
Again, if there are any other Scriptures that supposedly support this practice, I'm sure we'd all like to hear about it.
Peace,
SR
I will assume that you can not find anywhere in the infallible scriptures where any of the NT church prayed to dead saints..(dead in christ or not),and that admitting that admits Rome had picked up pagan practices along the way
Verga, I testify to you we believe we have read the Manning passage accurately. You may argue we are mistaken, but I do not see how you can argue we are in any way giving false testimony. This is what we truly believe. Set us straight if we are wrong. But why accuse us of what we have not done? It is a heartache to me.
Peace,
SR
Your belief was heresy in the third century and it is still heresy today.
AMDG
Trekking through old ghost towns doesn’t offer much in the way of education.
Most of them are actually re-creations, and in the real ones, everything of value had been carted off anyway.
You will get some exercise though; they’re mostly on hillsides in the desert.
.
>> “Newman said a lot of things including the fact that Catholicism includes paganism.” <<
.
Without paganism the catholic church would be a hollow shell of itself.
- They would be without the worship of Mary (Ishtar)
- They would be without their mass/eucharist.
- They would be without appointed ‘saints.’
- They would be without ‘purgatory.’
- They would be without prayers to dead humans.
- They would be without indulgences.
- They would be without apparitions of ‘Mary’ and demonic manifestations.
What would they have?
.
Projection is truly a sad thing.
How about CCC 841?
Hoss
Without paganism the Catholic Church would cease to exist.
A worthy collection of threads presenting Biblical truth, rather than the twisted ideas of men.
>> “All anti-Catholicism, all the time” <<
All the Gospel of Yeshua, all the time!
.
What is it about the word 'physically' that you do not understand?
Why didn't Christ teach the disciples to pray to the "saints" instead of,
"Whey you pray, say, 'Father...'"
God hears prayer. He is omniscient -- the saints are not. How do I know? If you're saved, you're one of the 'saints' -- I'm saved and I KNOW I'm not omniscient.
Or was this some secret teaching only the Cult knows about?
Hoss
.
>> “Squeals?” <<
.
The Yelps of the dogs that were hit.
.
True -- if you're saved. Not 'all' people are saved. But those who are with Christ do not hear prayers. They're not omniscient. Only the Triune God hears prayer.
Besides... how does the Roman Catholic Cult, who teaches that there is a place called Purgatory, know that these humanly canonized saints aren't in Purgatory themselves? Do they hear prayers there where they're getting flame-cleaned?
The only unscriptural things I've seen here are the unbiblical teaching put forth by the Roman Catholic Cult.
Hoss
What are the verses?
Hoss
Among numerous other topics as well. Prots: blind guides one and all.
I have said my peace, nothing I have said in the past has convinced any of you, so I will save my breath and leave it up to the Holy Spirit.
A question I too have pondered....as Rides_A_Red_Horse t says..." 'it is a mystery"...sortta like they know what marriages God recognizes
I know Bent’s Old Fork was rebuilt to look like the original. One picture showed a beautiful peacock. I have saved pictures of western ghost towns or what is left of them. When I read what mountain men went through and early settlers, I have to wonder if people today could have done what they did. Guess that can be said of our space pioneers, too. I find history fascinating. When I was in high scool back in the good ole days, I loved ancient history. My teacher looked like she could have lived way back then but she knew that history. I even like my English class with “olde” English. I was one of a very few that could understand it. My reading paid off when I was asked to read it to my class. Do not know if I could do that now! : )
It won't heaven where they are if Jesus didn't know them Himself.
What a sad, sad commentary on Catholicsm that Catholics have to rely word of mouth for Jesus to know about them.
For Catholicism, it's all about Mary. Jesus is just a window dressing.
You know Protestants who pray to Moses or David?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.