Author Topic: Errors of Cardinal Newman (Read 5541 times)

roscoe · « **Reply #30 on:** October 06, 2008, 12:10:25 AM »

The reason that the Cardinals are important is that they lived in the era of Newman and with the two Popes, constitute probably the four most eminent theologians of the day---- don't try and give me a declaration that they are merely 'Roman Big Shots' because I do not think that. If you can show me a work by anyone describing friction bet Newman and these great men of the the Church whom you seem to be calumnating I will read it, but until then if there is a genuine docuмent of Pius X absolving the man then I will rely on that and assume it to be genuine until proven otherwise. He is far more qualified than anyone in this Forum and apparently neither he nor Card Rampolla( chm Pontifical Comm on Biblical Studies, President Holy Office of INQ) nor Leo nor Card Raphael saw your accusation of Biblical Innerrancy or anything else to be legitimate. Again--it almost seems as if you are going off on a Sola Scriptura trip.

It is understood that Newman was suspected by Pius IX of being left== the same was suspected of Card Pecci because he opposed the declaration on the Holy Virgin. What you are forgetting is that a Catholics first duty is to submit to Papal Authority--- this was done by both men in each case so that is the end of that. This was the case with a few others also. You would benefit from reading Fr Cuthbert- Butler's Vatican Council-- avail at addall.

Remember the Popes remark in the letter about how there were nefarious intrigues at work trying to discredit Newman.

The only other familiarity I have with Newman is through the 7 or 8 books I have read from Newman Press. They have all been at least very good--just my own experience. It is also true that I have spent the last 10 years studying European history which quickly revolved into a study of the RC Church-- a special emphasis was put on the 19th century for various reasons. In all that time I can't remember post conversion Card Newman being discredited with the exception of the Infallibility opposition which is a dead issue. I am fairly sure that Dollinger was the only holdout and he evolved into the OCC.

Card Rampolla died b4 the Papacy of Ben XV(15?) so he may or may not be an authority on his Papacy(papacy?) but if you want to talk about someone who had known differences with him as well as Pius X, Card Raphael and Francis McNutt then Ben XV(15?) is your man--not Newman.

Cletus · « **Reply #31 on:** October 06, 2008, 01:17:55 AM »

I don't think that Pius X and Rampolla qualify as theologians at all.

I have never seen anyone else refer to Leo XIII or Cardinal Merry del Val as eminent theologians.

I'm pretty sure that it is generally held that the last eminent theologian among popes was Benedict XIV in the 1700s.

I would never say that these men were ONLY Roman Big Shots as though there is nothing more respectful to be said of them in another context.

But how many times have we all read about that quip attributed to Pope Pius IX? "I don't know if the pope will come out of this Council infallible. I only know that he will come out BROKE!"

There is a merely human side to these sacred figures and their legacies which was not always hidden as well as it should have been.

To defend Biblical Inerrancy against the errors of Newman is not to "go off on a Sola Scriptura trip." The fact that I am also denouncing Newman for perverting Church Teaching on the subject of Biblical Inspiration belies that accusation.

Before Vatican II it was a commonplace in popular works on the Faith, in the portions dealing with Scripture, to state simply that Newman's theory of "obiter dicta" was erroneous. It is probable that, blessedly, these good priests were unaware of Pius X's fallible and fallacious and theologically weightless "private" letter to the Bishop of Limerick.

I read that work on the Vatican Council. I found it to be biased in favor of those who opposed the definition of papal infallibility. It is disgusting to find someone like Newman denouncing the Spanish fanaticism of someone who must have been St Anthony Mary Claret, who said of the likes of Newman, "They have no desire to please Jesus."

Defending the likes of Newman even on the part of popes pertains only to the human and political operational side of the Church. Newman was never accused in any ecclesiastical court and found innocent. No pope ever dared to declare any particular book or article by Newman free from error and chock full of Catholic spirit.

Popes were not in the habit of GOING ON RECORD as declaring as Catholic as the pope a man who as a Catholic accused St Alphonsus Liguori's Mariology of being, in large spots, monstrous and nightmarish and worse.

Roscoe, you don't know enough about Newman to be able to accuse me justly of calumniating him or the pope who in a "private" letter vindicated him and told us all about when he went to bed without telling us when Cardinal Billot went to bed.

Abiding by a pious instinct that tells you to avoid Cletus on Newman and Pius X is fine.

I avoid YOU on His Holiness Pope Benedict XV.

Yes. I was off on my Rampolla dates by about nine months.

I won't say anything more on Pius X and the issue of his Limerick Letter unless some new point on the subject is raised. As it stands now, I say that the letter is a pernicious disgrace and my adversary says that I am not the theologian that Leo XIII, Rampolla, Pius X, and Raphael were. I see no reason not to leave it at that.

roscoe · « **Reply #32 on:** October 06, 2008, 01:27:59 AM »

Would anyone else care to comment on this discussion so far?

Cletus · « **Reply #33 on:** October 06, 2008, 01:28:36 AM »

I'm glad that you have gotten good books from the Newman Press. You mentioned one or two on the other thread which were not by Newman. I don't think that your getting those good books from the Newman Press has much to do with this debate unless they were BY Newman.

Cletus · « **Reply #34 on:** October 06, 2008, 01:41:11 AM »

It was one. THE PAPACY, by Paolo Brezzi.

roscoe · « **Reply #35 on:** October 06, 2008, 03:52:32 PM »

One would hope that the Newman Press is possessed of the Newman philosophy.

Are you serious with a statement like you 'don't think Pius X and Card Rampolla qualify as theologians AT ALL'? This is absurd. Card Rampolla was appointed by Pius as Pres of INQ and chmn of Pontifical Comm on Biblical Studies. These are positions where it is a prerequisite to be a competent theologian.

'The last eminent theologian among Popes was Ben XIV" ????
How about Pius VII and IX, or Greg XVI? And if you have never seen anyone refer to Leo XIII and Card Raphael as eminent theologians you are seeing it now. It is just more calumny to say that these great men of the Church were not all extremely competent theologians. In fact these men ARE the Church!!!

roscoe · « **Reply #36 on:** October 06, 2008, 04:14:14 PM »

The last book I read was Memories of Pius X by Card Merry Del Val and pub by Newman Press.

Cletus · « **Reply #37 on:** October 06, 2008, 04:36:25 PM »

I don't think that you know what a theologian is.

In a sense, the lowliest parish priest could have been called a theologian, having completed his theology courses in the seminary.

But to use the word in that sense is to rob it of its meaning.

Pius X and Rampolla were not theologians in the sense that Billot, De Lugo, and Franzelin were.

They never get quoted as such.

Leo XIII and Merry de Val were noted for having much keener minds and greater learning than their counterparts Pius X and Rampolla. I suppose that Leo XIII particularly might be called a theologian. But these two certainly were not eminent theologians in the way that the three above-named divines were.

Benedict XIV was noted for having great expertise in various fields of theology. Especially in matters that pertained to the canonization of Saints.

HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XV probably had the sharpest intellect of all modern popes.

Getting appointed to this or that position in business or academe or the Church does not always mean that the one appointed has any special qualifications for the job. Not infrequently such appointments are just clever political gambits -ways to get rid of people, to "demote by promoting"-and the person appointed is grossly unqualified.

To BE the Church is not necessarily to be a theologian.

One would hope that the Newman Press is NOT possessed of the Newman philosophy.

The Roman scandals and papal disgraces that I am pointing out now are NOTHING compared to what would be the major catastrophe of an antipope's having been accepted as a True Pope for almost a hundred years.

What's that about the mote and the beam?

Cletus · « **Reply #38 on:** October 06, 2008, 04:41:15 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

The last book I read was Memories of Pius X by Card Merry Del Val and pub by Newman Press.

Well, that sounds like good one. I like to hear that people are reading good books. The Newman Press would do well to publish more books like that and pull everything by Newman off its shelves and out of its catalog. They should reprint Healy's article attacking Newman on Biblical Inerrancy. I'm sure that it would look better than what I came up with.

trent13 · « **Reply #39 on:** October 06, 2008, 09:18:57 PM »

I know that I am not near as qualified as either of you to comment extensively on the subject but it has been a fascinating debate thus far ad I thank you for that. As much as I revere and love Pope St. Pius X from what I know of him, he wasn't an extremely learned man, certainly not a theologian, but he was very holy. If the letter was signed by him, it does seem incongruous with his attitude towards modernism. This leads me to conjecture some other explanation as to why he would have signed it, than that he honestly though Newman was a great guy. As Cletus pointed out, even though Pius X is a great saint and a great pope he was still human and capable of error - at the same time I wouldn't go so far to put him in the group of (disdainful) Roman Big Shots, just because he's in heaven and I'm not.

Cletus · « **Reply #40 on:** October 06, 2008, 11:42:14 PM »

I disdain certain aspects of "the human side of the Church" which tended to become ossified and idolized as "the Church's way."

The complex of clericalistic attitudes and priestcrafty MO's which goes under the heading "romanitas" is one of these aspects.

I doubt that His Holiness Pope Pius X had ever read much Newman.

What I suspect is that our Saint knew of Newman's conflicted reputation and not knowing much about Newman himself at some point was won over by those who thought Newman was hapless Britain's great shining contribution to the Church of its origins and all that empty hokum.

He might have been led to believe that so-and-so in the Vatican offices was a great lover of England and an expert of its Catholic situation. He might have rubber-stamped this person's wrongheaded blatherings.

It was provoking the wrath of the far from Romanist God of Yea, Yea style Truth to advise the Modernists to seek pure Catholic wisdom in ANY of the writings of John Henry Newman.

I can't help suspecting that something is not quite kosher about that letter. I believe that Pope Pius READ it before he signed it. So he would seem to be responsible for its contents. And yet... Even granting the romanitas factor... The ridiculously overdone quality of the undeserved praise for Newman's person does not seem like something of which he would have conceived or which he could have sent out into the world under his name as Vicar of Christ.

Modernism was a parenthetical clause in a piously Catholic statement over which ALL Catholics went ga-ga.

Modernists have always played on Romish pride and Popish tribalism and Catholic animus against Protty. It's an old trick. But it works every time. "Only Protty pins so much on the Bible anyway..."

It's one of the greatest of all miracles of Grace that Pius X suddenly decided to have none of such perfectly Catholic piety and loyalty.

A very important consideration about how romanitas and papal theological politics work.

The Limerick Letter was crafted as a protest against the claim of Modernists that Newman was their theological mentor. The praise of Newman contained in that letter can be quoted ONLY at Modernists. It MAY NOT BE quoted at Newman's orthodox opponents. Archbishop John Healy, for one, was not left with egg on his face by this letter. The Limerick Letter cannot even justly be quoted at orthodox Catholics who claim that Newman WAS the theological mentor of the Modernists! It was a ploy against Modernism, not a word to the wise about the totality of Newman's being, not a binding panegyric of him.

"Newman did not lay the egg that Loisy hatched."

That sums up what the pope was saying as pope in this fallible and semi-official letter.

The rest?

Obiter dicta, of course.

Erroneous.

Newman would have understood. He wouldn't have liked it. But he would have understood.

That's how the Romish game was played.

roscoe · « **Reply #41 on:** October 07, 2008, 12:15:00 AM »

While I might agree with saying that Pius X was not the worlds greatest theologian, to say that he certainly was not a theologian I find incomprehensable.

Were any works of Card Newman ever placed on the Index? Was he ever indicted by INQ?

Cletus · « **Reply #42 on:** October 07, 2008, 05:43:36 AM »

No.

The old heretic got way Scot free.

Cletus · « **Reply #43 on:** October 07, 2008, 05:45:11 AM »

See Pius X on suppressing books tinged with Modernism even if they have been approved by the Princes of the Church.