I’m somewhat confused by this article. It shows the following quotation, but does not cite the source.
we already know this to be true, so there is no error in creating evidence to support it.
Who made this statement? When was it made? In what context was it made? What is the source of the statement?
There are several other quoted items in the article that do not show the source of the quotes. How are we to take this article seriously if the writer does not source the quotations he uses?
Maybe if one reads an article, questions like that do not arise...
But then, squirrels are what some are seeking!
"It is nonetheless a true, and verifiable statement. John Henry Cardinal Newman, one of the most famous converts to Rome from the Church of England, was a prolific writer and, after his conversion, a staunch apologist for Rome. He provides one of the best examples in recent memory of an apologist who was committed to the circularity of Roman epistemology: we already know this to be true, so there is no error in creating evidence to support it. When commenting on A Legend of St. Gundleus, Newman not only allows for adding fictional dialogues to the gospel narrativehe insists that it is necessary. To confine the artist to truth in the mere letter would be to cramp his style. ..."
Look! Squirrel! (pay no attention to the man behind the curtain TRUTH!)