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 (18011890). The second was Henry Edward Manning (18081892). 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 (18691870).
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 Churchs 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 Churchs tradition, then it was always part and parcel of the Churchs 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 Romes whitewashed, revisionist, and often forged history, is to cease to be a Roman Catholic.
Where are the verses that show anyone in the church in the NT praying to anyone but God? Specifically, show us the verses that show people praying to Moses or David.
You made the claim.
Time to back it up with some facts, not with personal attacks.
Insert: "Catholics that arrive in Heaven will be Christians, not Catholics"
Hoss
The quote as it was used in shortened form was not "out of context", at all.
Not one tiny bit. The meaning does not change, but in fact becomes even worse when more in full.
Keep up the good work.
What happened to having your first pope (Peter) meeting us at the gate to se if we could come in ?? Sort like Joseph Smith meeting the mormons /??
What is this, stand up at the Improv???
In other words SR...do not expect a reply because they do not have one
Hey, that's a great idea, Mom. Each cult could have their own greeter, sort of like Wal Mart. The Catholics could have St Pete, the Mormons could have Joe Smith, the JWs could have Chuck Russel, the INCs could have Felix Y Manalo, the Name above all names could have Apollo C Quiboloy. The possibilities are endless. It would be like one grand reunion. I mean isn't it true, the universal fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man? 😂 We could all be singing, we're moving on up, to the east side, to a deluxe apartment in the SKY. 😇🇵🇭
Never heard of such nonsense. Where did you hear that? Have never heard any Protestant say they were little gods either.
Yes its all nonsense to you.
That is why your wandering in the protestant wilderness.
AMDG
Words have meaning:
I said: When you set yourselves up as little gods interpreting the bible in wide divergence with the truth - I am sure God is not amused.
AMDG
Why do I have this funny feeling that I've just been called ugly by a toad??
I guess that only the DEAD in Christ will RISE at the last trump.
I heard of stuff like this happening...
- Foundation Marypages -
Our foundation has the objective to develop, expand and maintain the Marypages website to promote the Roman Catholic belief and especially the Devotion of Our Blessed Mother, Mary. Our Newsletter (1 time a year) A Miraculous Medal with explanation of its design If your donation is 50 Euro or higher, then you will also receive a beautiful light blue rosary from Lourdes. In the rosary is a little holy water from the source in Lourdes. |
1 Thessalonians 4:16
For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.
Just TWO kinds of people being spoken of here:
Live ones and Dead ones.
Ecclesiastes 9:1-6
1 But all this I laid to heart, examining it all, how the righteous and the wise and their deeds are in the hand of God. Whether it is love or hate, man does not know; both are before him.
2 It is the same for all, since the same event happens
to the righteous and the wicked,
to the good and the evil,
to the clean and the unclean,
to him who sacrifices and him who does not sacrifice.
As the good one is, so is the sinner, and
he who swears is as he who shuns an oath.
3 This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that the same event happens to all. Also, the hearts of the children of man are full of evil, and madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead. 4 But he who is joined with all the living has hope, for a living dog is better than a dead lion.
5 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. 6 Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished, and forever they have no more share in all that is done under the sun.
Hey, CB, where’s that qquote from the CCC where it states that we are all God and becoming God?
I’m out of town on my iPad and don’t have it with me.
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.