Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

On Papolatry
Catholic Family News ^ | December 1999 | William Marra

Posted on 11/09/2004 12:46:30 PM PST by Mershon

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last
To: gbcdoj; Tantumergo

Good stuff. You guys are hitting on an area that I have found difficult to reconcile myself. While I have not read Newman's development of doctrine, I would propose that since it is not an authoritative magisterial document, Catholics are in no way bound to accept its contents.

Now, on the other hand, I am NOT saying that it is probably true and very good for the most part. It is just that I understand Vatican I very clearly, with Vatican II less so. When Vatican II is unclear, I search the meaning by the Council Fathers (a la Fr. Brian Harrison), and/or then interpret it in light of Vatican I, Trent or some other authoritative teaching (encyclicals, Church Fathers, Sacred Scripture) that IS clear. I believe this IS the correct and proper meaning of "Vatican II in light of Tradition," isn't it?

Thanks for your posts. They have been enlightening. I thought I was the only one thinking about this stuff.


21 posted on 11/10/2004 6:17:50 AM PST by Mershon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mershon
While I have not read Newman's development of doctrine, I would propose that since it is not an authoritative magisterial document, Catholics are in no way bound to accept its contents.

Good point. I was just reading an account of the life of St. Anthony Mary Claret, the only canonized saint to attend Vatican I. He was so scandalized by the statements of the "Inopportunists," led by Newman, that he suffered a stroke and died soon afterwards.

22 posted on 11/10/2004 6:27:57 AM PST by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian; Tantumergo; gbcdoj

But on another note, I have seen quotes by Pope St. Pius X defending Newman's thesis against his critics. Like I said, I am NOT advocating that Newman was wrong or unorthodox, I just know that his "Development of Christian Doctrine" always comes widely recommended, and it may be perfectly fine. It's just that it is NOT an authoritative and binding Church document, like encyclicals or documents from ecumenical councils or catechisms or creeds are. So, if there is confusion caused after one reads the quotes of Vatican I presented by Tantum and Newman's document, then I would resort to reading Newman "in light of" Vatican I, with Vatican I's explanation carrying more weight.


23 posted on 11/10/2004 6:42:31 AM PST by Mershon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Mershon
I have seen quotes by Pope St. Pius X defending Newman's thesis against his critics

Interesting. Where were the quotes taken from? It's seems hard to believe that Pius X would take an interest in Newman from two generations earlier. And Newmans' "development of doctrine" sounds awfully similar to the modernism that he condemned so strongly. Also, wasn't "The Development of Doctrine" written while Newman was still a protestant? So Pius X was defending something written by a protestant (at the time)?

24 posted on 11/10/2004 6:53:52 AM PST by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Mershon

bump for later


25 posted on 11/10/2004 7:30:19 AM PST by St.Chuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian; Tantumergo; gbcdoj

Condemned! Those who condemned Newman. Here it is...

http://www.newmanreader.org/canonization/popes/acta10mar08.html



English translation, provided by Michael Davies, also included in Davies' Lead Kindly Light: The Life of John Henry Newman, Neumann Press, 2001.

LETTER
In which Pope Pius X approves the work of the Bishop of Limerick
on the writings of Cardinal Newman.
To his Venerable Brother
Edward Thomas Bishop of Limerick

Venerable Brother, greetings and Our Apostolic blessing. We hereby inform you that your essay, in which you show that the writings of Cardinal Newman, far from being in disagreement with Our Encyclical Letter Pascendi, are very much in harmony with it, has been emphatically approved by Us: for you could not have better served both the truth and the dignity of man. It is clear that those people whose errors We have condemned in that Document had decided among themselves to produce something of their own invention with which to seek the commendation of a distinguished person. And so they everywhere assert with confidence that they have taken these things from the very source and summit of authority, and that therefore We cannot censure their teachings, but rather that We had even previously gone so far as to condemn what such a great author had taught. Incredible though it may appear, although it is not always realised, there are to be found those who are so puffed up with pride that it is enough to overwhelm the mind, and who are convinced that they are Catholics and pass themselves off as such, while in matters concerning the inner discipline of religion they prefer the authority of their own private teaching to the pre-eminent authority of the Magisterium of the Apostolic See. Not only do you fully demonstrate their obstinacy but you also show clearly their deceitfulness. For, if in the things he had written before his profession of the Catholic faith one can justly detect something which may have a kind of similarity with certain Modernist formulas, you are correct in saying that this is not relevant to his later works. Moreover, as far as that matter is concerned, his way of thinking has been expressed in very different ways, both in the spoken word and in his published writings, and the author himself, on his admission into the Catholic Church, forwarded all his writings to the authority of the same Church so that any corrections might be made, if judged appropriate. Regarding the large number of books of great importance and influence which he wrote as a Catholic, it is hardly necessary to exonerate them from any connection with this present heresy. And indeed, in the domain of England, it is common knowledge that Henry Newman pleaded the cause of the Catholic faith in his prolific literary output so effectively that his work was both highly beneficial to its citizens and greatly appreciated by Our Predecessors: and so he is held worthy of office whom Leo XIII, undoubtedly a shrewd judge of men and affairs, appointed Cardinal; indeed he was very highly regarded by him at every stage of his career, and deservedly so. Truly, there is something about such a large quantity of work and his long hours of labour lasting far into the night that seems foreign to the usual way of theologians: nothing can be found to bring any suspicion about his faith. You correctly state that it is entirely to be expected that where no new signs of heresy were apparent he has perhaps used an off-guard manner of speaking to some people in certain places, but that what the Modernists do is to falsely and deceitfully take those words out of the whole context of what he meant to say and twist them to suit their own meaning. We therefore congratulate you for having, through your knowledge of all his writings, brilliantly vindicated the memory of this eminently upright and wise man from injustice: and also for having, to the best of your ability, brought your influence to bear among your fellow-countrymen, but particularly among the English people, so that those who were accustomed to abusing his name and deceiving the ignorant should henceforth cease doing so. Would that they should follow Newman the author faithfully by studying his books without, to be sure, being addicted to their own prejudices, and let them not with wicked cunning conjure anything up from them or declare that their own opinions are confirmed in them; but instead let them understand his pure and whole principles, his lessons and inspiration which they contain. They will learn many excellent things from such a great teacher: in the first place, to regard the Magisterium of the Church as sacred, to defend the doctrine handed down inviolately by the Fathers and, what is of highest importance to the safeguarding of Catholic truth, to follow and obey the Successor of St. Peter with the greatest faith. To you, therefore, Venerable Brother, and to your clergy and people, We give Our heartfelt thanks for having taken the trouble to help Us in Our reduced circumstances by sending your communal gift of financial aid: and in order to gain for you all, but first and foremost for yourself, the gifts of God’s goodness, and as a testimony of Our benevolence, We affectionately bestow Our Apostolic blessing.

Given in Rome at St. Peter’s, on 10 March 1908, in the fifth year of Our Pontificate.
Pius PP. X


26 posted on 11/10/2004 8:23:30 AM PST by Mershon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Comment #27 Removed by Moderator

Comment #28 Removed by Moderator

To: Mershon

Very interesting letter, thanks. Apparently the modernists of the day were trying to claim the authority of Newman to support what they were doing. Unfortunately, that trend has continued, as even today modernists love to use Newman as a justification.

But clearly Pope Pius was correct that there is a great distinction to be made between the works of Newman and the works of the modernists. But the pope does distinguish between those works of Newman from before he became a Catholic and the works he wrote afterwards. Since "The Development of Doctrine" was written while Newman was still a protestant, it would not fall under this approbation, and in fact, Pope Pius says that these works do have a similarity with modernism. Still Pope Pius distinguished Newman from the modernists in that Newman submitted all his protestant works (as well as his later works) to the judgment of the magisterium.

So we can all agree with Pope Pius X that the modernists "falsely and deceitfully" claimed the justification of Newman for their works. At the same time, one has to question how reliable Newman would be for a contemporary reader.


29 posted on 11/10/2004 8:48:32 AM PST by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Mershon
Condemned! Those who condemned Newman.

I'm not sure of what you meant with those words, but in his letter Pope Pius X condemned the modernists who approved Newman and used him as a justification for their own theories. Clearly they were acting "falsely and deceitfully" since Newman never would have supported the modernists. But nowhere in his letter does Pope Pius condemn anyone except those who try to use Newman to evade the impact of Pius' encyclical Pascendi against the modernists.

30 posted on 11/10/2004 8:51:55 AM PST by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian

Understood and agreed.


31 posted on 11/10/2004 9:06:03 AM PST by Mershon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Tantumergo
"Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the council's continuity with tradition, especially in POINTS OF DOCTRINE which, perhaps because THEY ARE NEW, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the church."

As Vatican II and Vatican I both testify, "new doctrine" cannot pertain to the deposit of faith and therefore there is no obligation on any Catholic to accept it.

Maybe the way to read that is to focus on the "points of doctrine".... which are new. Not new doctrine, but rather doctrine's new points. Humanae Vitae could be cited as an example traditional teaching, but addressing "new" points. Maybe I'm over-parsing, but surely the pope had a reason for using that particular phrase.

32 posted on 11/10/2004 7:33:18 PM PST by St.Chuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: AskStPhilomena

The author is qualifying the election of popes on what he, or even popular opinion might regard as disastrous or positive, when objectively, neither may be the case in the mind of God. His implication is that the gates of hell will prevail against Christ's church, if only sporadically, due to the permissive will of God. Doesn't quite jive with traditional Catholic teaching.


33 posted on 11/10/2004 8:00:33 PM PST by St.Chuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: St.Chuck

A bad pope doesn't imply that the gates of hell have prevailed over the Church.
Nor are all the popes actions infallible.
Even the great pope St Peter denied the Lord 3 times, and had to be resisted to the face by St Paul.
Fortunately, Peter repented of his sin.
We live in hope that the current pope will, before it's too late, repent and to do penance for persistenly promoting the "spirit of Assisi" and publicly venerating evil books like the koran.


34 posted on 11/11/2004 2:33:45 PM PST by AskStPhilomena
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Mershon
This piece helped me quite a bit, because I don't seek rebellion, and it clarified really what I had intuited (sp?;word?) all along, and that was that the workings of any Pontificate are not necessarily of the Holy Ghost.

And while I do respect the office of the Pope, I have never been able to fully believe that all which emanated from it was for good. Not good in the good/evil sense necessarily, but good in the health of the Church sense.

I agree very much with this gentleman's assessment of the Holy Ghost not calling (or perhaps even presiding over) Councils, and not being responsible for Weakland and Law.

But one thing that I don't understand (perhaps I missed it in the article) is what is the responsibility of the Pope when he assigns Bishops and Cardinals the likes of Law? How is the laity to properly look upon that?

35 posted on 11/11/2004 3:01:45 PM PST by AlbionGirl (+Ecce Agnus Dei, ecce qui tollit peccata mundi.+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AskStPhilomena
We live in hope that the current pope will, before it's too late, repent and to do penance for persistenly promoting the "spirit of Assisi" and publicly venerating evil books like the koran.

Really? What other evil books has he "venerated"? How often does he even mention Assisi? He has nothing to repent as regards Assisi, or does my opinion reveal a judgemental attitude?

36 posted on 11/11/2004 6:16:22 PM PST by St.Chuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Tantumergo; gbcdoj
St. Vincent of Lerins

But some one will say perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ's Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged in itself, alteration, that it be transformed into something else. The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning.

The growth of religion in the soul must be analogous to the growth of the body, which, though in process of years it is developed and attains its full size, yet remains still the same. There is a wide difference between the flower of youth and the maturity of age; yet they who were once young are still the same now that they have become old, insomuch that though the stature and outward form of the individual are changed, yet his nature is one and the same, his person is one and the same. An infant's limbs are small, a young man's large, yet the infant and the young man are the same. Men when full grown have the same number of joints that they had when children; and if there be any to which maturer age has given birth these were already present in embryo, so that nothing new is produced in them when old which was not already latent in them when children. This, then, is undoubtedly the true and legitimate rule of progress, this the established and most beautiful order of growth, that mature age ever develops in the man those parts and forms which the wisdom of the Creator had already framed beforehand in the infant. Whereas, if the human form were changed into some shape belonging to another kind, or at any rate, if the number of its limbs were increased or diminished, the result would be that the whole body would become either a wreck or a monster, or, at the least, would be impaired and enfeebled.

In like manner, it behoves Christian doctrine to follow the same laws of progress, so as to be consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age, and yet, withal, to continue uncorrupt and unadulterate, complete and perfect in all the measurement of its parts, and, so to speak, in all its proper members and senses, admitting no change, no waste of its distinctive property, no variation in its limits.

For example: Our forefathers in the old time sowed wheat in the Church's field. It would be most unmeet and iniquitous if we, their descendants, instead of the genuine truth of corn, should reap the counterfeit error of tares. This rather should be the result,--there should be no discrepancy between the first and the last. From doctrine which was sown as wheat, we should reap, in the increase, doctrine of the same kind--wheat also; so that when in process of time any of the original seed is developed, and now flourishes under cultivation, no change may ensue in the character of the plant. There may supervene shape, form, variation in outward appearance, but the nature of each kind must remain the same. God forbid that those rose-beds of Catholic interpretation should be converted into thorns and thistles. God forbid that in that spiritual paradise from plants of cinnamon and balsam darnel and wolfsbane should of a sudden shoot forth.

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. They may receive proof, illustration, definiteness; but they must retain withal their completeness, their integrity, their characteristic properties.

For if once this license of impious fraud be admitted, I dread to say in how great danger religion will be of being utterly destroyed and annihilated. For if any one part of Catholic truth be given up, another, and another, and another will thenceforward be given up as a matter of course, and the several individual portions having been rejected, what will follow in the end but the rejection of the whole? On the other hand, if what is new begins to be mingled with what is old, foreign with domestic, profane with sacred, the custom will of necessity creep on universally, till at last the Church will have nothing left untampered with, nothing unadulterated, nothing sound, nothing pure; but where formerly there was a sanctuary of chaste and undefiled truth, thenceforward there will be a brothel of impious and base errors. May God's mercy avert this wickedness from the minds of his servants; be it rather the frenzy of the ungodly.

But the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another's, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, 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.

37 posted on 11/12/2004 5:19:43 AM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj; Mershon

thanks for the info. Mershon, will this ever be available on line or in print? I'd like to read it


38 posted on 11/12/2004 5:36:53 AM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tantumergo

All Ecumenical Councils are part of Tradition.


39 posted on 11/12/2004 5:41:05 AM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj; Tantumergo; Mershon
Leo XIII - Satis Cognitum

9. The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own.

*Points of Doctrine, new or old, are Tradition

40 posted on 11/12/2004 9:44:34 AM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson