Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: WorldsAway on July 31, 2025, 01:03:17 PM
-
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2025-07/st-john-henry-newman-set-to-become-newest-doctor-of-the-church.html (https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2025-07/st-john-henry-newman-set-to-become-newest-doctor-of-the-church.html)
The news was announced today, July 31, in a statement from the Holy See Press Office, which reported that during an audience granted to Cardinal Marcello Semeraro, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Causes of Saints, Pope Leo XIV has “confirmed the affirmative opinion of the Plenary Session of Cardinals and Bishops, Members of the Dicastery for the Causes of Saints, regarding the title of Doctor of the Universal Church, which will soon be conferred on Saint John Henry Newman.”
-
Fr. Paul Kimball has a very interesting book he wrote about Cardinal Newman. Controversial among traditionalists.
Dolorosa Press: Cardinal Newman: Trojan Horse in the Church (https://dolorosapress.com/Cardinal-Newman-Trojan-Horse-in-the-Church.htm)
-
I've always felt like there was something just a little "off" about Newman's theology, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Can anyone help me out here?
-
I think there should have been a devil's advocate during Newman's canonization process.
-
Cardinal John Henry Newman's Exhumation Objectors
Professor Ian Ker
Oxford University, England
Healthy manhood at the service of the kingdom
Recently various newspapers have published articles on Venerable John Henry Newman, sowing doubts about his sɛҳuąƖ inclination. The following is a clarification by Prof. Ian Ker, an eminent Newman scholar and Oxford University Professor.
The exhumation of Venerable John Henry Newman's body from his grave has led to calls in particular from the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ lobby that he should not be separated from his great friend and collaborator Fr. Ambrose St John, in whose grave Newman is buried in accordance with his own specific wishes.
The implication of these protests is clear: that Newman wished to be buried with his friend because, although no doubt chaste and celibate, nevertheless he had more than simply friendly feelings for St. John.
However, if wanting to be buried in the same grave as someone else indicates some kind of sɛҳuąƖ love for the other person, then C.S. Lewis' brother Warnie, who is buried in the same grave in accordance with both brothers' wishes, must have had incestuous feelings for his brother.
Or again, G.K. Chesterton's devoted secretary, Dorothy Collins, whom he and his wife regarded as a daughter, while thinking it presumptuous to ask to be buried in the same grave as the Chestertons. nevertheless directed that she be cremated and that her ashes should be buried in the same grave. Does this mean that she had more than filial feelings for one or both of her employers?
Ambrose St. John was an extremely close friend of Newman. He had devoted himself for 30 years to the service of Newman, even asking if he might take a vow of obedience to him at his Confirmation, a request that was, of course, refused.
Newman blamed himself for his death, having asked him to translate the German theologian Joseph Fessler's important book on infallibility in the wake of the First Vatican Council, a last labour of love that had proved too much for him, overworked as he already was.
In his dark last days as an Anglican, Newman said that Ambrose St. John had come to him "as Ruth to Naomi". After joining Newman's semi-monastic community at Littlemore outside Oxford, he had remained as Newman's closest supporter all through the difficulties of founding the Oratory of St. Philip Neri in England and all through Newman's many subsequent trials and tribulations as a Catholic.
In his Apologia pro Vita sue, Newman "with great reluctance" mentions that at the time of his first religious conversion when he was 15 he became convinced that "it would be the will of God that I should lead a single life".
For the next 14 years, "with the break of a month now and then", and then continuously, he believed that his "calling in life would require such a sacrifice".
Needless to say, there were no "civil partnerships" between men then in what was still a Christian country where ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activity was punishable by imprisonment and was universally regarded as immoral. Newman, of course, is talking about marriage with a woman and the sacrifice that celibacy involved.
The only reason it could have been a sacrifice was because like any normal man Newman, wished to get married. But, although not belonging to a church where celibacy was the rule or even the ideal, Newman, steeped in Scripture as he was, knew the words of our Lord: "there are eunuchs who have made themselves that way for the sake of the kingdom of heaven".
Twenty five years after his youthful embrace of celibacy, we find Newman counting the cost, at the conclusion of the extraordinary account he wrote of his near fatal illness in Sicily in 1833: "The thought keeps pressing on me, while I write this, what am I writing it for?... Whom have I, whom can I have, who would take interest in it?... This is the sort of interest which a wife takes and none but she — it is a woman's interest — and that interest, so be it, shall never be taken in me.... And therefore I willingly give up the possession of that sympathy, which I feel is not, cannot be, granted to me. Yet, not the less do I feel the need of it".
In these moving sentences, written while he was still a clergyman of the Church of England and fully entitled to marry, we see Newman's total commitment to the life of virginity to which he felt unmistakably called, but yet we can also feel the deep pain he experienced in sacrificing the love of a woman in marriage.
Finally, what should be said to those who think Newman's wishes should be honoured and that Ambrose St. John's remains should be removed with his?
Throughout his life as a Catholic. Newman always insisted that whatever he wrote he wrote under the correction of Holy Mother Church. That was his constant refrain. If the Church decrees that his remains should be removed to a church, then Newman's undoubted response would be that of his last testament. like everything else he wrote, he wrote under correction of higher authority.
And if that higher authority decrees that his body be removed and that of his friend left, then Newman would say without hesitation, "so be it".
Taken from:
L'Osservatore Romano
Weekly Edition in English
3 September 2008, page 3
L'Osservatore Romano is the newspaper of the Holy See.
The Weekly Edition in English is published for the US by:
The Cathedral Foundation
L'Osservatore Romano English Edition
320 Cathedral St.
Baltimore, MD 21201
Subscriptions: (410) 547-5315 (http://tel:(410) 547-5315)
Fax: (410) 332-1069 (http://tel:(410) 332-1069)
lormail@catholicreview.org
-
I've always felt like there was something just a little "off" about Newman's theology, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Can anyone help me out here?
I think the ascent of mt Carmel youtube channel has some stuff on him, and the dimonds as well.
-
I've always felt like there was something just a little "off" about Newman's theology, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Can anyone help me out here?
There’s good evidence he was a Jєωιѕн ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ Marrano.
Marrano in the sense of a Church infiltrator, not a Sephardic jew.
He was a bankers son and had jew-Brit military connections, especially with his Anglican high-church status.
He was in Ireland during the beginning (1845) and end (1851) of the Irish h0Ɩ0cαųst.
Since half the British army occupied Ireland at this time, it was hard for him not to know that 6.2million Irish had been forced starved to death.
-
A little about the name "Newman". We think of Cardinal Newman. Maybe some think of the jwish actor Paul Newman.
Here's another Newman:
--https://fatherfeeney.wordpress.com/2009/08/23/the-point-july-1957/
The Jews’ greatest triumph, however, in the art of dividing Christendom by injecting new and Jєωιѕн ideas into the midst of the Church, came with the multiple revolts of the Protestant “reformers.” Each one of them is a detectable creature of the Judaizers, and Jєωιѕн commentators from Graetz down to Louis Israel Newman have been most happy to acknowledge them as such. In his Jєωιѕн Influence On Christian Reform Movements, Newman summarizes: “Protestantism made its greatest stand where the Marrano Jews were active … They helped break down the authority of the Vulgate and thereby prepared Europe for the Reformation.”
The reference to Saint Jerome’s “Vulgate” version, the Catholic version, of the Bible is no idle one. The entire Reformation era rocked with the “battle of the books” controversy, in which Jєωιѕн-trained Hebrew scholars were constantly pressing for the authority of Hebrew texts, and for the universal study of those numerous Jєωιѕн books which the Church had everywhere been censoring or burning — chief among them, the blasphemous тαℓмυd.
--https://fatherfeeney.wordpress.com/2009/08/23/the-point-june-1958/
It is not likely that the near future will see any relaxation of the United Jєωιѕн Appeal’s money-grabbing efforts. The Jєωιѕн State still needs, and badly, the financial support of its American citizens-in-exile; it has some projects in mind that will be costly. Any American Jew who does not know what these projects are, is out of touch with his brothers across the sea; for as the influential New York rabbi, Dr. Louis Israel Newman says: “There is scarcely an intelligent Israeli today who believes that the present boundary lines are permanent, or that the hill country of Cis-Jordania is to be forever separated from Israeli territory.”
And here's something about Cardinal Newman:
--https://fatherfeeney.wordpress.com/2009/08/22/the-point-december-1954/
THE PRESENT POSITION OF CARDINAL NEWMAN
Q. What is it about John Henry Newman, English convert and Cardinal, that Catholics chiefly remember?
A. His mastery of English prose.
Q. What is it about John Henry Newman that Catholics of our day generally forget?
A. They forget, or never have been told of, his Jєωιѕн descent.
Q. If we Catholics were to bear in mind Newman’s real ancestry when we are appraising his literary ability, could we not then boast that we have had in our fold the greatest Jєωιѕн writer in the English language?
A. We could — except for the fact that there have been in the English language other Jєωιѕн writers, like Robert Browning, Max Beerbohm, and Philip Guedalla, who never once thought of joining the Catholic Church.
Q. Apart from his literary abilities, did not Newman make a good conversion to the Catholic Church?
A. He made a nostalgic conversion.
Q. What sort of conversion is that?
A. It is a conversion effected in a typical Old Testament manner, in which one is always sighing after the “flesh-pots” of things one has abandoned, and which in Newman’s case required an Apologia Pro Vita Sua, an apology for his own life, to justify.
Q. After his conversion, and his ordination to the priesthood, is it really true that Newman used often to forego theological studies and pastoral pursuits in order to devote more time to reading from the pagan Greeks?
A. Biographers disagree. Newman’s only comment in the matter was his repeated remark, “I shall never be a saint, for I love the pagan classics too intensely.”
Q. Did not the blood which he inherited, from the Jєωιѕн moneylender who was his father, allow Newman to bring to the Faith some of those same racial qualities possessed by the very earliest Christians, by Our Lord’s own Apostles and disciples?
A. The Jєωιѕн qualities which Newman brought to the Faith have been very tidily set in order by Canon William Barry, S. T. D., the eminent English authority on Newman. Canon Barry reports that to Newman’s “Hebrew affinities” the following qualities are attributed: “ … his cast of features, his remarkable skill in music and mathematics, his dislike of metaphysical speculations, his grasp of the concrete, and his nervous temperament.”
Q. What was it that Newman called those fellow Catholics of his who, at the time of the Vatican Council, were in favor of having the Pope’s personal infallibility defined?
A. Newman nervously called them, “an aggressive and insolent faction.”
Q. Was this attitude toward the definition of Papal infallibility the reason why Pope Pius IX so totally mistrusted Newman?
A. It was one of the reasons.
Q. If Pope Pius IX so frowned upon him, why was Newman made a Cardinal?
A. Newman was made a Cardinal after Pope Pius IX died, when the Catholic Duke of Norfolk prevailed upon the newly installed Leo XIII to brighten the aged Newman’s final years with a red hat.
Q. Is it in England that Cardinal Newman’s spirit best survives today?
A. It is not. Modern Catholic Englishmen, without analyzing it, sense that Cardinal Newman was, religiously, the kind of interloper in their midst that Prime Minister Disraeli was politically.
Q. Where then have Newman’s name and fame been most perpetuated?
A. In America, in the form of clubs. Newman Clubs, they are called.
Q. What is a Newman Club?
A. It is an organized excuse for the presence, the sinful presence, of Catholic students at secular universities founded and fostered by Masons and, lately, indoctrinated by Jews.
-
Newman became the first major "modernist" church figure (who was both influenced and admired by the Vatican II and post V2 Novus Ordo destroyers) when he wrote that "faith is akin to a seed that grows into a giant tree."
The modernist destroyers applied Newman's statement to Dogmatic Church Statements, thereby using it to "justify" their 180 degree changes they made concerning Catholic dogma, faith, and morals beginning in the 1960s and continuing to this very day .
Therefore, it's no surprise that Newman is getting this posthumous promotion.
-
They're willing to canonize Newman while they reject Thomas A Kempis. With Kempis they heavily rely on a devil's advocate to assume he might have thought something against God because he was buried alive. Yet Newman wanting to be buried on top (Newman's request) another man was Okee Dokee.
-
Orestes Brownson wrote an article about Francis Newman, the brother of John Cardinal Henry. Brownson said that Francis had a better grasp of the Faith than his brother.
Orestes Brownson Society - "The Eclipse of Faith," Brownson's Quarterly Review for October, 1853 (A review of Francis Newman, the younger brother of John Henry Newman) (http://www.orestesbrownson.org/the-eclipse-of-faith-brownsons-quarterly-review-for-october-1853.html)
-
I've always felt like there was something just a little "off" about Newman's theology, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Can anyone help me out here?
John Henry Newman: Doctor of the Church? | FSSPX News (https://fsspx.news/en/news/john-henry-newman-doctor-church-53978)
-
That's okay. I'll stick with St. Anthony Mary Claret, Newman's foe at Vatican I.
-
They're willing to canonize Newman while they reject Thomas A Kempis. With Kempis they heavily rely on a devil's advocate to assume he might have thought something against God because he was buried alive. Yet Newman wanting to be buried on top (Newman's request) another man was Okee Dokee.
.
The Church doesn't canonize someone if there is even the tiniest doubt about his sanctity. Thomas a Kempis is probably in heaven, but that tiny bit of doubt was enough for the Church to not canonize him.
And you're right, before Vatican 2, Cardinal Newman wouldn't have gotten past Day One of his canonization process without his entire application being thrown into a waste basket, because of what you mention here. That was under the Catholic Church. But with the conciliar church, pretty much anything goes, which means it's not the Catholic Church.
-
The Dimonds posted this on their youtube page.
John Henry Newman’s Error On Baptism & Confirmation
In the past we’ve mentioned that Cardinal John Henry Newman’s understanding of dogma was very flawed. A clear example of that is found in the following passage.
John Henry Newman, An Essay On The Development Of Christian Doctrine, Chapter 2, Sect. 3, 1878: “Of the Sacraments, Baptism is developed into Confirmation on the one hand; into Penance, Purgatory, and Indulgences on the other.”
According to Newman, Confirmation is a development of Baptism. But that’s false. Such a notion was condemned as a modernist error in the following passage of Pope St. Pius X’s Lamentabile.
Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #44: “There is nothing to prove that the rite of the Sacrament of Confirmation was employed by the Apostles. The formal distinction of the two Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation does not pertain to the history of primitive Christianity.” - CONDEMNED
Confirmation was not a development of Baptism, but a separate sacrament instituted by Christ, as the Catechism of the Council of Trent taught.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Institution of Confirmation: “Accordingly, pastors must explain that not only was [Confirmation] instituted by Christ the Lord, but that by Him were also ordained, as Pope St. Fabian testifies, the rite of chrism and the words which the Catholic Church uses in its administration. This is a fact easy to prove to those who acknowledge Confirmation to be a Sacrament, because all the sacred mysteries exceed the powers of human nature and could be instituted by no other than God alone.”
For the proper understanding of dogma (in contrast to Newman’s flawed understanding), see our recent video: To Understand Catholic Dogma You Need To Know This
Here is also a decent playlist on Newman by Ascent of Mt Carmel
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB9wsq--mkdN3MswdrjDF_dHDzgUFhvHF
-
The Dimonds posted this on their youtube page.
John Henry Newman’s Error On Baptism & Confirmation
In the past we’ve mentioned that Cardinal John Henry Newman’s understanding of dogma was very flawed. A clear example of that is found in the following passage.
John Henry Newman, An Essay On The Development Of Christian Doctrine, Chapter 2, Sect. 3, 1878: “Of the Sacraments, Baptism is developed into Confirmation on the one hand; into Penance, Purgatory, and Indulgences on the other.”
According to Newman, Confirmation is a development of Baptism. But that’s false. Such a notion was condemned as a modernist error in the following passage of Pope St. Pius X’s Lamentabile.
Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #44: “There is nothing to prove that the rite of the Sacrament of Confirmation was employed by the Apostles. The formal distinction of the two Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation does not pertain to the history of primitive Christianity.” - CONDEMNED
.....etc.
ALWAYS question the Dimond Brothers - they are masters at twisting the truth.
John Henry Newman's 'An Essay On The Development Of Christian Doctrine' was written just before Newman's conversion to Catholicism in 1845. This work was first published in that same year.
The Postscript by the publisher in this first edition reads as follows: "Since, the above (Preface) was written, the Author has joined the Catholic Church. It was his intention and wish to have carried his Volume through the Press before deciding finally on this step. But when he had got some way in the printing, he recognized in himself a conviction of truth of the conclusions to which the discussions leads, so clear as to supersede further deliberation. Shortly afterwards circuмstances gave him the opportunity of acting upon it, and he felt that he had no warrant for refusing to do so.
His first act on his conversion was to offer his Work for the revision to the proper authorities; but the offer was decline on the ground that it was written and partly printed before he was a Catholic, and that it would come before the reader in a more persuasive form, if he read it as the author wrote it....".
This would indicate that any flaws in this work may be contributed to Newman's protestant formation. The above work was written while he was still an Anglican.
If we are going to post examples of his said errors, they will need to be examples taken from his work after his conversion.
I would be very interested to hear what others have to say on this matter because I'm a great fan of Michael Davies (English traditional Catholic writer) and he in turn seemed to quote John Henry Newman a lot.
-
ALWAYS question the Dimond Brothers - they are masters at twisting the truth.
John Henry Newman's 'An Essay On The Development Of Christian Doctrine' was written just before Newman's conversion to Catholicism in 1845. This work was first published in that same year.
The Postscript by the publisher in this first edition reads as follows: "Since, the above (Preface) was written, the Author has joined the Catholic Church. It was his intention and wish to have carried his Volume through the Press before deciding finally on this step. But when he had got some way in the printing, he recognized in himself a conviction of truth of the conclusions to which the discussions leads, so clear as to supersede further deliberation. Shortly afterwards circuмstances gave him the opportunity of acting upon it, and he felt that he had no warrant for refusing to do so.
His first act on his conversion was to offer his Work for the revision to the proper authorities; but the offer was decline on the ground that it was written and partly printed before he was a Catholic, and that it would come before the reader in a more persuasive form, if he read it as the author wrote it....".
This would indicate that any flaws in this work may be contributed to Newman's protestant formation. The above work was written while he was still an Anglican.
If we are going to post examples of his said errors, they will need to be examples taken from his work after his conversion.
I would be very interested to hear what others have to say on this matter because I'm a great fan of Michael Davies (English traditional Catholic writer) and he in turn seemed to quote John Henry Newman a lot.
Good points.
-
ALWAYS question the Dimond Brothers - they are masters at twisting the truth.
John Henry Newman's 'An Essay On The Development Of Christian Doctrine' was written just before Newman's conversion to Catholicism in 1845. This work was first published in that same year.
The Postscript by the publisher in this first edition reads as follows: "Since, the above (Preface) was written, the Author has joined the Catholic Church. It was his intention and wish to have carried his Volume through the Press before deciding finally on this step. But when he had got some way in the printing, he recognized in himself a conviction of truth of the conclusions to which the discussions leads, so clear as to supersede further deliberation. Shortly afterwards circuмstances gave him the opportunity of acting upon it, and he felt that he had no warrant for refusing to do so.
His first act on his conversion was to offer his Work for the revision to the proper authorities; but the offer was decline on the ground that it was written and partly printed before he was a Catholic, and that it would come before the reader in a more persuasive form, if he read it as the author wrote it....".
This would indicate that any flaws in this work may be contributed to Newman's protestant formation. The above work was written while he was still an Anglican.
If we are going to post examples of his said errors, they will need to be examples taken from his work after his conversion.
I would be very interested to hear what others have to say on this matter because I'm a great fan of Michael Davies (English traditional Catholic writer) and he in turn seemed to quote John Henry Newman a lot.
You will see that the Dimond brothers quoted from the 1878 edition. The 1878 edition was approved by Newman and included a dedication from him to the president of Trinity College. It also includes the same error as the first edition.
-
You will see that the Dimond brothers quoted from the 1878 edition. The 1878 edition was approved by Newman and included a dedication from him to the president of Trinity College. It also includes the same error as the first edition.
The point is that Newman wrote the book as an Anglican exploring the perceived "inconsistencies" in the doctrine of the Catholic Church; it a book outlining the journey of his exploration and reasoning. As such, I maintain that it is not a good example of his Catholic theology as a whole. I would like to know if there are later works - post conversion - that any error has been found in. I also do not like the way the Diamond Brothers neglected to explain the back-story of this example and give it some context. Neither did they explain that Newman had submitted this work to the Catholic authorities and they had allowed it to be published with the preface explaining this backstory.
-
They're willing to canonize Newman while they reject Thomas A Kempis. With Kempis they heavily rely on a devil's advocate to assume he might have thought something against God because he was buried alive. Yet Newman wanting to be buried on top (Newman's request) another man was Okee Dokee.
Talk about a falsehood growing in the telling! There is no evidence that Thomas A. Kempis was buried alive. He died at the extreme old age of 91 after a long illness from dropsy. The reason he has not been canonized is because not all the conditions necessary were met. There is no doubt about his virtue but miracles through his intercession have not been sufficiently proven. As for the insinuations you made about Newman, you are walking on thin ice. John Henry's (Catholic) life long friend of over thirty years - Fr. Ambrose St. John - died before him, and therefore Newman made arrangements for himself to be buried in the same grave as his friend. To word it the way you did is disgraceful.
-
Newman made arrangements for himself to be buried in the same grave as his friend.
.
Yes, this is creepy, weird and scandalous. You don't think so?
-
Talk about a falsehood growing in the telling! There is no evidence that Thomas A. Kempis was buried alive.
:confused::confused::confused: Yes there is. He was dug up during a canonization inquiry and there were scratch marks found on the top/inside of the casket. Since people questioned if he despaired, his canonization didn't proceed.
-
The point is that Newman wrote the book as an Anglican exploring the perceived "inconsistencies" in the doctrine of the Catholic Church; it a book outlining the journey of his exploration and reasoning. As such, I maintain that it is not a good example of his Catholic theology as a whole. I would like to know if there are later works - post conversion - that any error has been found in.
Yes, his post-conversion books/articles were repeatedly rebuffed and critiqued by fellow-convert, famous-american writer, Orestes Brownson. Newman was liberal; Brownson was not. Newman was way too Anglican, in the Anglican British culture. Brownson saw the stark difference between catholicism and protestantism in America and this gave him a much better pulse on protestant errors.
-
Several bishops denounced Newman to Rome as a heretic, and the very orthodox Cardinal Manninger certainly considered him to be one.
St. Pius X, unfortunately, made the mistake of backing Newman ... undoubtedly due to his advisors, since he obviously did not have the time to read the torrent of writing from Newman.
Newman had been very much opposed to Vatican I, and told those who opposed it after the Council to lay low because some day the "interpretation" of Vatican I, of papal infallibility, would change. He clearly had a Modernist view regarding the "development of doctrine" (despite people who tried to claim otherwise), and Newman actually was the one who allowed the Modernists to get that initial foothold into the Church.
-
Yes, this is creepy, weird and scandalous. You don't think so?
So, EVEN THE MODERNIST VATICAN realized this was super creepy and likely suggestive of unnatural inclinations, so much so that in 2008 the Vatican ordered that Newman be exhumed from that joint grave and reintered elsewhere.
-
:confused::confused::confused: Yes there is. He was dug up during a canonization inquiry and there were scratch marks found on the top/inside of the casket. Since people questioned if he despaired, his canonization didn't proceed.
Pax, this is a wild rumour. If you don't believe me, state your source. Where is the official statement?
It doesn't even make sense. If I woke up to find myself in a coffin, I would attempt to lift the lid. Anyone would! That would have absolutely no baring on his sainthood.
-
So, EVEN THE MODERNIST VATICAN realized this was super creepy and likely suggestive of unnatural inclinations, so much so that in 2008 the Vatican ordered that Newman be exhumed from that joint grave and reintered elsewhere.
No, they did not think it super creepy. Only you on here think it super creepy. Which I find super creepy.
The Vatican decided to intern Newman elsewhere because of the gαy lobby putting so much emphasis on it. It was merely to quieten this gαy propaganda that you are falling for.
-
It doesn't even make sense (i.e. Thomas a Kempis possibly being buried alive). If I woke up to find myself in a coffin, I would attempt to lift the lid. Anyone would! That would have absolutely no baring on his sainthood.
How would you lift up the lid (of the casket)? #1, assuming he was buried rather than entombed there would have been several feet of dirt on top of it. #2, it is highly likely, even in the 15th century, that the casket or coffin lid was fastened down by screws or wooden pegs, making it impossible to push it open from the inside.
-
How would you lift up the lid (of the casket)? #1, assuming he was buried rather than entombed there would have been several feet of dirt on top of it. #2, it is highly likely, even in the 15th century, that the casket or coffin lid was fastened down by screws or wooden pegs, making it impossible to push it open from the inside.
It would be a natural spontaneous reaction to try.
-
Several bishops denounced Newman to Rome as a heretic, and the very orthodox Cardinal Manninger certainly considered him to be one.
St. Pius X, unfortunately, made the mistake of backing Newman ... undoubtedly due to his advisors, since he obviously did not have the time to read the torrent of writing from Newman.
Newman had been very much opposed to Vatican I, and told those who opposed it after the Council to lay low because some day the "interpretation" of Vatican I, of papal infallibility, would change. He clearly had a Modernist view regarding the "development of doctrine" (despite people who tried to claim otherwise), and Newman actually was the one who allowed the Modernists to get that initial foothold into the Church.
There is a lot of hate and lies being directed at this great man and I would like to know where it is coming from.
If you have concrete proof that Newman taught error as a Catholic, then please post it. Otherwise you are merely slandering this poor man's name and passing on slander.
Don't believe what the haters say - research yourself. I am convinced that we have anti-Catholic agitators on this forum so be careful.
For those who believe Pope Pius made a mistake in approving John Henry Newman's work please read the following article - link provided.
https://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2025/08/pius-x-vindicates-john-henry-newman.html
-
I've read that the fact of this are disputed, but I have always found it harsh to exclude someone from canonization just because they simply carried through on a survival instinct, and possibly even half-consciously. So if I threw some potential saint in the ocean and he desperately tried to stay afloat, he'd be disqualified also? What should he have done, just give up and allow himself to sink like a rock to the bottom in complete submission? If ѕυιcιdє is wrong, it's also a passive form of ѕυιcιdє to not even make an attempt to stay alive. I mean ... unless he scrawled blasphemies on the lid of the coffin, I don't see that as any impediment to his canonization.
Now, he did have many enemies in life, since he rubbed quite a few people the wrong way in that many would have "resembled the remarks" made in the Imitation. Of course, whatever the reason, God's Providence prevented the canonization, and that perhaps for a legitimate reason, i.e. that for some reason he did not save his soul (God forbid) or may still be in Purgatory ... or some such.
Of course, canonizations are not primarily for the honor of the saints per se, but only per accidens, and in order to inspire and edify the faithful. Their gloy consists entirely in the divinely recognized assessment of their merits, so on one level, if he's in the glory of Heaven now, he could hardly care less whether he's canonized or not, as I'm sure that the countless souls who had benefitted from what he wrote redound to his glory far more than would any esteem he received from the faithful. That's actually quite consistent with the spirituality in The Imitation.
I do know that I owe him a debt of gratitude, since when I first receive the gift of Catholic faith around the age of 10, I was greatly edified and motivated by his writing.
-
No, they did not think it super creepy. Only you on here think it super creepy. Which I find super creepy.
The Vatican decided to intern Newman elsewhere because of the gαy lobby putting so much emphasis on it. It was merely to quieten this gαy propaganda that you are falling for.
You just make up whatever sounds good to you, right? Yes they did it to "quieten[sic]" the gαy propaganda ... but I guess they simply miscalculated since it had precisely the OPPOSITE effect. Quietest that the gαys would have remained would have been had you done nothing, but by taking this action you were guaranteed to raise their ire. So if you removed Newman from the tomb, what? ... people simply wouldn't notice or remember that they had been interred together and the gαys would just say, "ah, yes, I guess I mis-remembered, and Newman wasn't buried with Ambrose after all".
I think that sometimes you need to read your posts out loud to yourself before clicking the "Post" button and making a fool of yourself.
They removed Newman precisely beause of and due to the beatification / canonization process in order to quiet criticism of his canonizaton from the ANTI-gαy crowd, not from the gαys, realizing that it's creepiness would in fact give them a good deal of ammunition. Duh. :facepalm:
-
There is a lot of hate and lies being directed at this great man and I would like to know where it is coming from.
If you have concrete proof that Newman taught error as a Catholic, then please post it. Otherwise you are merely slandering this poor man's name and passing on slander.
Don't believe what the haters say - research yourself. I am convinced that we have anti-Catholic agitators on this forum so be careful.
For those who believe Pope Pius made a mistake in approving John Henry Newman's work please read the following article - link provided.
https://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2025/08/pius-x-vindicates-john-henry-newman.html
Yeah, just because you say so. Newman's Modernist writings are well docuмented, citations where he exhorted those hostile to the dogmatic definition of papal infallibility to keep quiet and bide their time ... until the Church better understood the dogma, i.e. understood it the way they did, as being a meaningless formula. That's a direct expression of Modernism that the Church's understanding of dogma can change over time to mean something than what it was originally intended to mean. There are ample citations of this.
During his lifetime, SIX BISHOPS from the British Isles also denounced Newman to Rome for heresy, and the eminently orthodox Cardinal Manning couldn't stand Newman due to his heterodox teaching, having said once that he counted no fewer than TEN HERESIES in the works of Newman.
As for the Pius X approbation of Newman, he was clearly mistaken. He absolutely did not have the time to study Newman's incredibl prolific volume of work. In that "vindication", which does nothing of the sort, St. Pius X had merely read a DEFENSE of Newman written by someone who in having set out to defend him, did not objectively consider the real evidence. Newman, like all the Modernists, as St. Pius X himself taught, will say something orthodox on one page, and then heterodox on the next ... making it incredibly simple for someone who want to vindicate him to do so by selective citation of the orthodox portions, something which St. Pius X clearly did not have the time to personally investigate. That "article" does nothing to dispel the notion that St. Pius X was mistaken, but simply recounts the opinon of St. Pius X.
But just because you're simply carrying water for the Conciliar sect, simply because you have decided that Newman was a "great man" and that the (well docuмented and clear evidence regarding his Modernism) were irrational hate and lies (evidently for no reason) ... that settles it.
You really are embarrassing and thoroughly discrediting yourself.
-
Yeah, just because you say so. Newman's Modernist writings are well docuмented, citations where he exhorted those hostile to the dogmatic definition of papal infallibility to keep quiet and bide their time ... until the Church better understood the dogma, i.e. understood it the way they did, as being a meaningless formula. That's a direct expression of Modernism that the Church's understanding of dogma can change over time to mean something than what it was originally intended to mean. There are ample citations of this.
* Cite the citations laddie.
During his lifetime, several bishops from the British Isles also denounced Newman to Rome for heresy, and the eminently orthodox Cardinal Manning couldn't stand Newman due to his heterodox teaching.
* So you keep saying. Evidence?
As for the Pius X approbation of Newman, he was clearly mistaken. He absolutely did not have the time to study Newman's incredibl prolific volume of work. In that "vindication", which does nothing of the sort, St. Pius X had merely read a DEFENSE of Newman written by someone who in having set out to defend him, did not objectively consider the real evidence. Newman, like all the Modernists, as St. Pius X himself taught, will say something orthodox on one page, and then heterodox on the next ... making it incredibly simple for someone who want to vindicate him to do so by selective citation of the orthodox portions, something which St. Pius X clearly did not have the time to personally investigate. That "article" does nothing to dispel the notion that St. Pius X was mistaken, but simply recounts the opinon of St. Pius X.
* Re-read what St. Pope Pius X said: "The writings of Cardinal Newman, far from being in disagreement with Our Encyclical Letter Pascendi, are very much in harmony with it...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...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...
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 book...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..."
But just because you're simply carrying water for the Conciliar sect, simply because you have decided that Newman was a "great man" and that the (well docuмented and clear evidence regarding his Modernism) were irrational hate and lies (evidently for no reason) ... that settles it.
* St. Pius X thought him a great man. I guess I'm in good company. Besides, thus far, I have not seen anything that contradicts St. Pius X's evaluation.
You really are embarrassing and thoroughly discrediting yourself.
* I love you too xx
-
Newman is credited by everyone as coming up with the idea called “development of doctrine”. Many, many people have called this idea quasi-heretical, if not outright error. Go google it. This is nothing new. Newman paved the way for V2.
He was also scandalously against V1 and infallibility. And this was another red flag against him.
Go do some research before you ask “for sources” for something that happened over 100 yrs ago. It’s no secret.
-
Newman is credited by everyone as coming up with the idea called “development of doctrine”. Many, many people have called this idea quasi-heretical, if not outright error. Go google it. This is nothing new. Newman paved the way for V2.
* The term was introduced in Newman's 1845 book An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. This was written while he was an Anglican. IF there are any errors, this may be the reason.
Newman did not pave the way for Vatican II. St. Pius X stated he was no modernist.
He was also scandalously against V1 and infallibility. And this was another red flag against him.
* Vatican I was convoked by Pope Pius IX in 1869. How was he 'scandalously' against Vatican I? If there was any real problem then why didn't it bother Pope Pius X who would have known about it. St. Thomas Aquinas questioned the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which states that Mary was conceived without original sin. He had difficulty reconciling this belief with his understanding of original sin and redemption. Do you have a red flag against him too?
*Newman simply wrote a PRIVATE letter to his Ordinary of Birmingham, Bishop Ullathorne, expressing his worry that such a declaration will create difficulties among fellow priests and clergy in Protestant England. Writes Newman "Where we are all at rest, and have no doubts, and at least, practically, not to say doctrinally, hold the Holy Father to be infallible... a great difficulty is to be created...As to myself personally, please God, I do not expect any trial at all, but I cannot help suffering with the various souls that are suffering. I look with anxiety at the prospect of having to defend decisions which may not be difficult to my private judgement, but may be most difficult to defend logically and in the face of historical facts ...think of the score of Pontifical scandals in the history of eighteen centuries..."
Newman was NOT denying Papal infallibility. He was merely worried on how it would effect English clergy especially the Anglicans who were on the verge of converting. This was part of the foreseen calamity he was talking about.
Go do some research before you ask “for sources” for something that happened over 100 yrs ago. It’s no secret.
* The onus is on you. I'm not the one slandering Newman's name without evidence.
-
:facepalm: Newman pushed development of doctrine before and AFTER his conversion.
Due to his Anglican heresies, after his conversion, he should’ve been laicized.
Also, Pope St Pius X was one of a few who were orthodox in all of Rome. He was utterly surrounded by modernists. The whole argument that “Well, Pius X didn’t do anything so it must’ve been ok.” :facepalm: He was outnumbered and outmanned. He could only do so much.
-
:facepalm: Newman pushed development of doctrine before and AFTER his conversion.
Due to his Anglican heresies, after his conversion, he should’ve been laicized.
Also, Pope St Pius X was one of a few who were orthodox in all of Rome. He was utterly surrounded by modernists. The whole argument that “Well, Pius X didn’t do anything so it must’ve been ok.” :facepalm: He was outnumbered and outmanned. He could only do so much.
I see your method of arguing is "repeat a lie long enough and forcefully enough in order to make it stick". You also are the very definition of Protestantism; You always ignore the counter-evidence and latch on to an incidental that could be twisted to suit your narrative. Such as your rebuttal which is totally nonsensical. St. Pope Pius X wrote a long letter exonerating Newman from the LIES and SLANDEROUS ACCUSATIONS of his time - the only reaction to Newman's work and actions - and you say it was because this saintly Pope was outnumbered by Modernists. So what are to believe of any of St. Pius X's decisions or conclusions then?
If you are going post slander, at least have the decency to post some sort of evidence for your claim.
-
Newman is credited by everyone as coming up with the idea called “development of doctrine”. Many, many people have called this idea quasi-heretical, if not outright error. Go google it. This is nothing new. Newman paved the way for V2.
Pax, you and your ilk are regurgitating LIES and SLANDER about Cardinal Newman. Read the following:
An Irish bishop defended Newman from the false charges that he was a modernist and a liberal, and that his theory of development was no different than modernist “evolution of dogma” which Pope St. Pius X had condemned.
The docuмent’s title is: Cardinal Newman and the Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis (http://www.newmanreader.org/controversies/modernism/index.html), and it was written by Edward Thomas O’Dwyer, Bishop of Limerick (1908). Here is an excerpt:
(3) With regard to the theory of the development of Christian Doctrine, two questions entirely distinct from one another have to be considered in relation to Newman: (a) is his theory admissible according to the principles of Catholic Theology, and (b) is it covered, or touched in any wise, by the condemnations of the recent Encyclical.
The first of these questions I leave on one side now, venturing merely to express, with all submission, my personal opinion, little as it is worth, that in its broad outlines it is thoroughly sound and orthodox, and most serviceable for the interpretation of the facts of the history of dogma.
As to the second, I cannot see how there can be room for doubt. Newman’s whole doctrine was not only different from that of the Modernists, but so contrary to it in essence and fundamental principle, that I cannot conceive how, by any implication, it could be involved in their condemnation. Nothing less than an explicit statement by the supreme authority of the Holy See would convince me to the contrary. I see no common ground in both systems. The word development is the only thing which they hold in common. They do not mean the same thing by Christianity, by dogma, by religion, by Church. They do not start from the same first principles, and consequently they are as separate as the poles.
Pope St. Pius X himself – in the same year: 1908 – wrote a letter to Bishop O’Dwyer, thoroughly approving of his docuмent in defense of Newman:St. Pope Pius X wrote:
"The writings of Cardinal Newman, far from being in disagreement with Our Encyclical Letter Pascendi, are very much in harmony with it...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...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...
Moreover: After the death of Pope Pius IX in 1878, the papacy of Pope Leo XIII began. Pope Leo admired Newman’s fierce religious orthodoxy and appointed him as a cardinal in 1879. The news that he was to be a Cardinal came as a conclusive vindication of his orthodoxy and loyalty to the Catholic Church. He himself declared ‘the cloud is lifted for ever’. After receiving his cardinal’s hat in Rome, Newman described how, ‘for thirty, forty, fifty years I have resisted to the best of my powers the spirit of liberalism in religion. Never did Holy Church need champions against it more than now.’ Pope Leo was so fond of Newman and his desire to stay true to the faith that he referred to him as, ‘Il mio cardinale’, meaning ‘my cardinal’.
-
Your naive as to how a big corporation, like the vatican operates. You seem to innocently think that a pope can know what everyone is doing, like a father over a household. But a father is in charge of maybe 10 people (with a big family), while a pope is in charge of 1,000. A pope relies on advisors, administrators, etc to do his job. He can't and doesn't know all the details.
None of what St Pius X or Leo XIII did in regards to Newman was infallible or inerrant. Both were surrounded with bad men/wolves in sheeps clothing. Newman was a modernist. Newman had many friends. St Pius X and Leo XIII were duped and lied to.
-
No, they did not think it super creepy. Only you on here think it super creepy. Which I find super creepy.
The Vatican decided to intern Newman elsewhere because of the gαy lobby putting so much emphasis on it. It was merely to quieten this gαy propaganda that you are falling for.
It’s very clear…
Newman was a jew-Brit queer.
Newman’s male lovers (https://www.traditioninaction.org/polemics/F_05_Newman06.html)
-
It’s very clear…
Newman was a jew-Brit queer.
It's very clear - you are slanderer with bad intent. Even the way you have written what you wrote shows an anti-Catholic spirit. God help you.
Cardinal Newman had an extremely close friend who worked as his secretary for around 30 years. They converted together, trained together, and they defended the faith together. Through his darkest hours leading up to his conversion, Newman said it was Ambrose St. John, who like a guardian angel, helped him through it.
At the age of 15, Newman said he had felt called to make an vow of celibacy. As an Anglican he was allowed to marry however decided not to as a sacrifice for Christ. Prof. Ian Ker, an eminent Newman scholar and Oxford University Professor, tells us that twenty five years after this youthful vow, Newman wrote: "The thoughts keep pressing on me, while I write this, what am I writing it for?..who would take an interest in it?...this is the sort of interest which a wife takes and none but she...I willingly give up the possession of the sympathy...Yet, not the less do I feel the need of it."
I have read Cardinal Newman's letter detailing the lead up to his friend's death. It is beautiful. I cannot fathom how anyone can read such filth into such a pure and saintly friendship. You have to be so removed from what it is to love. That's the only explanation.
When I have more time, I am going to write an analysis of this letter - to show just how sick and deceitful these detractors are.
Meanwhile, I'll leave you with an idea of the inner workings of this great man's soul. The following is a prayer he wrote: "I protest once for all, before men and Angels, that sin shall no more have dominion over me. This Lent I make myself God’s own for ever. The salvation of my soul shall be my first concern. With the aid of His grace I will create in me a deep hatred and sorrow for my past sins. I will try hard to detest sin, as much as I have ever loved it. Into God’s hands I put myself, not by halves, but unreservedly. I promise Thee, O Lord, with the help of Thy grace, to keep out of the way of temptation, to avoid all occasions of sin, to turn at once from the voice of the Evil One, to be regular in my prayers, so to die to sin that Thou mayest not have died for me on the Cross in vain." (Ref: Meditations and Devotions)
-
For everyone out there (besides the indoctrinated-obstinant-Boru):
If the V2 church, the Indults and the Modernists all are happy that John Newman is a saint, then stop and ask yourself, "Why is that?".
-
For everyone out there (besides the indoctrinated-obstinant-Boru):
If the V2 church, the Indults and the Modernists all are happy that John Newman is a saint, then stop and ask yourself, "Why is that?".
Because they see what St. Pius X saw: a great defender of the faith. The very fact that the Church, despite her infiltration, has raised this great man to the office of 'Doctor of the Church' shows that tradition is indeed reclaiming the reigns. It's a symbol of hope. And an Englishman at that :)
I have provided numerous forms of evidence to prove that all those lies and slanders are false. I have researched into his life and read some of his letters. I have read what both St. Pius X and Pope Leo XIII had to say about him and the great esteem they had for him. Do not sit there and tell me I'm indoctrinated and obstinate when you have done nothing but spew these lies and slander simply because the Church you refuse to recognise, gives him the honour he deserves. That is the only reason why you spew. You don't even care if these lies are true or not. For you it's a weapon against the Church you have come to hate.
It's not the Catholic way Pax.
-
Because they see what St. Pius X saw
:laugh1::laugh2::laugh1: Since when do the Modernists, V2-ers and Indulters see things the way St Pius X does? He he were pope today, all 3 of those groups would be excommunicated immediately!!
-
:laugh1::laugh2::laugh1: Since when do the Modernists, V2-ers and Indulters see things the way St Pius X does? He he were pope today, all 3 of those groups would be excommunicated immediately!!
Given that you refuse to listen to Pope Pius X regarding Newman, you might as well add yourself to that list.
As for the raising up Newman as a 'Doctor of the Church' - Christ is in control.
-
St. John Henry Newman: Doctor of the Church
St. Pope Pius X said: "The writings of Cardinal Newman, far from being in disagreement with Our Encyclical Letter Pascendi, are very much in harmony with it...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...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...
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 book...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..."
"The Catholic principle of doctrinal development as explained by Cardinal Newman is fundamentally different.
Msgr. Philip Flanagan explains: 'Newman's theory of doctrinal development is fundamentally different from the theology of the Modernists, who so unjustly claim his support. For them, revelation is a continuing process destined to go on till the end of time, with earlier statements of the truth being modified and perhaps even contradicted by later statements more suited to the spirit of the age in which they are made. For Newman the revealed message was given once and for all by God, to be more and more fully grasped as time goes on, but to be passed on in its entirety, undiminished and uncorrupted. For the Modernist, dogmas have no absolute truth and are valid for the time in which they are made, but not necessarily at other periods.' (NAL, p.26).
Newman shows clearly that there can never be any possibility of contradiction during the course of the development. Each stage is potentially contained in its preceding stage all the way back to the begining. I have already cited the example of the acorn and the oak tree." - Ref: 'Partisans of Error: St. Pius X Against the Modernist' by Michael Davies, pg.54.
-
False. St. Pius X was reacting to a study by someone favorable to Newman and clearly had not read his entire body of works. Just like all Modernists, they'll be orthodox on one page and heretical on the next, blending the two. Msgr. Fenton wrote at length about Newman's errors.
6 Bishops from the British Isles denounced Newman for heresy to the Vatican.
Cardinal Manning (eminently orthodox) once said that he's found at least 10 heresies in the works of Newman.
Newman denied papal infallibility, one time even after it's definition, but then was forced to backtrack, but then in backgracking he minimized it to the point of meaninglessness, and still tied it to the assent of the Church.
Worst of all, while corresponding after the Council with those reluctant to accept its teaching, Newman advised them to accept a minimamlist understanding, and then bide their time until the Church's understanding on the matter developed ... to the point of eventually reversing the doctrine, thereby expressing one of the cornerstone principles of Modernism.
-
St. John Henry Newman: Doctor of the Church
Salza/Siscoe/XavierFem Borat continues carrying water for the heretical Conciliar sect.
-
:facepalm: Newman pushed development of doctrine before and AFTER his conversion.
Due to his Anglican heresies, after his conversion, he should’ve been laicized.
Also, Pope St Pius X was one of a few who were orthodox in all of Rome. He was utterly surrounded by modernists. The whole argument that “Well, Pius X didn’t do anything so it must’ve been ok.” :facepalm: He was outnumbered and outmanned. He could only do so much.
Not only that, but Newman was absolutely notorious for producing incredible volumes of writing. While others liked to hear themselves talk, Newman thought so highly of himself that he spewed out an estimated 50,000 pages of material, which I'm sure that St. Pius X had time to read.
Msgr. Fenton, well trained and orthodox Catholic theologian, denounced Newman on several points of doctrine ... bolstering Cardinal Manning's claim that he had read at least 10 heresies in the works of Newton.
Some of the earliest Modernists excommunicated by St. Pius X actually credited Newman for breaching the Church with these heresies.
Highly Recommended:
(https://i.ibb.co/Ngd9JHKh/newman-trojan.jpg)
-
Salza/Siscoe/XavierFem Borat continues carrying water for the heretical Conciliar sect.
Not to mention that he hasn't even been given the title of Doctor yet AFAIK. It's only been announced that he will be given it some time in the future. She's probably just trying to push buttons..but should still, out of submission and respect to the Conciliar Church, refrain from calling Newman Doctor until Prevost formally gives him that title :popcorn:
-
Not to mention that he hasn't even been given the title of Doctor yet AFAIK. It's only been announced that he will be given it some time in the future. She's probably just trying to push buttons..but should still, out of submission and respect to the Conciliar Church, refrain from calling Newman Doctor until Prevost formally gives him that title :popcorn:
That reminds me, LOL, that Cardinal Manning usually referred to Newman as Doctor Newman ... but that was by way of insult.
-
Not only that, but Newman was absolutely notorious for producing incredible volumes of writing. While others liked to hear themselves talk, Newman thought so highly of himself that he spewed out an estimated 50,000 pages of material, which I'm sure that St. Pius X had time to read.
* St. Pius X was reacting to the accusations at the time. It is these he is addressing. These same accusations seem to have re-surfaced.
Msgr. Fenton, well trained and orthodox Catholic theologian, denounced Newman on several points of doctrine ... bolstering Cardinal Manning's claim that he had read at least 10 heresies in the works of Newton.
* This is the third time you have mentioned Cardinal Manning. Where is the quote and the reference? As you seem to know so much, educate us. From the little I've looked at, Cardinal Manning seem to have respected Cardinal Newman very much.
* Regarding Msgr Fenton - same again. Please may I have some proof. You keep mouthing off like a budgerigar but its the same old.
Some of the earliest Modernists excommunicated by St. Pius X actually credited Newman for breaching the Church with these heresies.
Highly Recommended:
(https://i.ibb.co/Ngd9JHKh/newman-trojan.jpg)
* Found a cheap copy, so have ordered. Imagine, you recommending a SSPX priest? Wow.
-
Still surprised they haven’t made “St” JP2 “the great” (ie the NWO Quran kisser) a Doctor, for his “theological masterpiece” (of filth) called the theology of the body. It’s a shame that his heretical ideas aren’t given the respect they deserve among Modernists. I mean he is called “the great” amongst new-Rome anti-Catholics, but his efforts deserve much more pageantry.
Maybe they’re saving the doctor title for Benedict. He certainty wrote more. And his heresies more subtle and insidious. He was definitely smarter than JP2, but JP took the cake in duping people with world youth day and promoting condoms in Africa. And he loved worshipping with naked tribesman and promoting inter-faith abominations as at Assisi 1996.
I mean Francis was worse than both of them, but JP2 and Benedict were more guilty because they were trailblazers in error, lies and heresy. Francis had the easy path of just taking a prior heresy and upping the ante.
JP2 and Benedict lied about the Fatima 3rd secret, created the indult mess, and took ecuмenical to new heights. Francis owes most of his heretical progress to them.
-
I've always felt like there was something just a little "off" about Newman's theology, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Can anyone help me out here?
Please excuse larger print, due to my eyesight alone.
Cardinal Henry Newman (1801-1890) asserted that his faith had no problem with science’s heliocentrism, evolution, hominoids, aliens or anything else discovered by ‘science.’ All these 'beliefs' have long been declared as heresies. Bertra M Maoritz, in Notre Dame University’s Church Life Journal, Oct. 16th 2019, available on its website, called Henry Newman ‘a patron saint of evolution,’ the same Journal that has an article, ‘Even Doctors of the Church Make Theological Mistakes Now and Again,’ in which it quotes Pope John Paul II’s at his Galileo Commission’s report, commenting ‘although the Pope does not mention him, it seems clear that Cardinal Bellarmine, as utterly remarkable as he was, was one of those theologians not up to the task.’ In other words, Bellarmine and Pope Paul V got their Biblical geocentrism wrong along with all of the Fathers. So much for Trent's teaching that when all of the Fathers agree on a meaning of Scripture, it cannot be challenged.
Henry Newman wrote: ‘Such an alarm [mistake like the Galileo case] never can occur again, for the very reason that it has occurred once. At least, for myself, I can say that, had I been brought up in the belief of the immobility of the earth as though a dogma of Revelation, and had associated it in my mind with the incommunicable dignity of man among created things, with the destinies of the human race, with the locality of purgatory and hell, and other Christian doctrines, and then for the first time had heard Galileo’s thesis, and, moreover, the prospect held out to me that perhaps there were myriads of globes like our own all filled with rational creatures as worthy of the Creator’s regard as we are, I should have been at once indignant at its presumption and frightened at its speciousness, as I never can be at any parallel novelties in other human sciences bearing on religion;
no, not though I found probable reasons for thinking the first chapters of Genesis were not of an economical character, that there was a pre-Adamite race of rational animals, or that we are now 20,000 years from Noe. For that past controversy [Galileo case] and its issue have taught me beyond all mistake, that men of the greatest theological knowledge may firmly believe that scientific conclusions are contrary to the Word of God, when they are not so, and pronounce that to be heresy which is truth. It has taught me, that Scripture is not inspired to convey mere secular knowledge, whether about the heaven or the earth, or the race of man; and that I need not fear for Revelation whatever truths may be brought to light by means of observation and experience out of the world of phenomena which environ us.’---Philosophical Readings of Henry Newman, 1861. (https://inters.org/Newman-Galileo-Revelation)
-
..................
Henry Newman wrote: ‘Such an alarm [mistake like the Galileo case] never can occur again, for the very reason that it has occurred once. At least, for myself, I can say that, had I been brought up in the belief of the immobility of the earth as though a dogma of Revelation, and had associated it in my mind with the incommunicable dignity of man among created things, with the destinies of the human race, with the locality of purgatory and hell, and other Christian doctrines, and then for the first time had heard Galileo’s thesis, and, moreover, the prospect held out to me that perhaps there were myriads of globes like our own all filled with rational creatures as worthy of the Creator’s regard as we are, I should have been at once indignant at its presumption and frightened at its speciousness, as I never can be at any parallel novelties in other human sciences bearing on religion; no, not though I found probable reasons for thinking the first chapters of Genesis were not of an economical character, that there was a pre-Adamite race of rational animals, or that we are now 20,000 years from Noe. For that past controversy [Galileo case] and its issue have taught me beyond all mistake, that men of the greatest theological knowledge may firmly believe that scientific conclusions are contrary to the Word of God, when they are not so, and pronounce that to be heresy which is truth. It has taught me, that Scripture is not inspired to convey mere secular knowledge, whether about the heaven or the earth, or the race of man; and that I need not fear for Revelation whatever truths may be brought to light by means of observation and experience out of the world of phenomena which environ us.’---Philosophical Readings of Henry Newman, 1861. (https://inters.org/Newman-Galileo-Revelation)
First of all, thank you Cassini for some concrete evidence highlighting Newman's error. There is quite a lot of information in this article - 'Galileo, Revelation and the Educated man' (see link that Cassini provides) so I intend to unpack this with some comments and questions:
Wrote Newman: "For that past controversy and its issue have taught me beyond all mistake, that men of the greatest theological knowledge may firmly believe that scientific conclusions are contrary to the Word of God, when they are not so, and pronounce that to be heresy which is truth. It has taught me... that Scripture is not inspired to convey mere secular knowledge, whether about the heaven or the earth, or the race of man; and that I need not fear for Revelation whatever truths may be brought to light by means of observation and experience out of the world of phenomena which environ us.
Comment: Newman seemed to be a loyal son of the Church. For he believed as the Church believed at his time, that they had made a terrible mistake by judging Galileo so harshly for views, which, a century later, had been
"proven" by science to be possible. In fact this entire essay is a defense of the Church for its sudden U-turn :
"Galileo on his knees abjured the heresy that the earth moved...And then at length, in our own day, the doctrine, which was the subject of it, was found to be so harmless in a religious point of view, that the books advocating it were taken off the Index, and the prohibition to print and publish the like was withdrawn."
"Such an alarm never can occur again, for the very reason that it has occurred once."
Comment: Newman seems to be saying here that the Galileo case generated so much controversy, that the Church has learnt its lesson and is now more objective towards new physical "evidence".
"And I seem to myself here to be speaking under the protection and sanction of the Sacred Congregation of the Index itself, which has since the time of Galileo prescribed to itself a line of action, indication of its fearlessness of any results which may happen to religion from physical sciences."
Comment: 'Fearlessness' towards new theories, for Newman considers them non threatening to scripture which, he states, is written for salvation purposes and not for understanding natural science:
"Thus investigation, which Catholics would have suppressed as dangerous, when, in spite of them, it has had its course, results in conclusions favorable to their cause. How little then need we fear the free exercise of reason! How injurious is the suspicion entertained of it by religious men! How true it is that nature and revelation are nothing but two separate communications from the same infinite Truth!
Newman then concludes that:
"If she [the Catholic Church] affirms, as I do not think she will affirm, that everything was made and finished in a moment though Scripture seems to say otherwise, and though science seems to prove otherwise, I affirm it too, and with an inward and sincere assent. And, as her word is to be believed, so her command is to be obeyed. I am as willing then to be silenced on doctrinal matters which are not of faith as to be taught in matters which are. It would be nothing else than a great gain to be rid of the anxiety which haunts a person circuмstanced as I am, lest, by keeping silence on points as that on which I have begun to speak, I should perchance be hiding my talent in a napkin. I should welcome the authority which by its decision allowed me to turn my mind to subjects more congenial to it."
Question: Cassini, would you agree that Newman was a product of his times? That the Church itself held these views? And that he was merely defending/articulating the actions of the Church. I am not arguing that what he defended was true, only that what he was defending was also held to be true by even the reigning Pope - Pope Pius IX.
Question: Can this view constitute as heresy given it has not been defined clearly by the Church? There is no doubt that he is suggesting error and I concede to the evidence that he was teaching error. I also concede that he was a victim of Modernism as were the Popes who orchestrated the U-turn.
Question: What were Pope Pius X's view on the heliocentric theory?
-
Because they see what St. Pius X saw: a great defender of the faith. The very fact that the Church, despite her infiltration, has raised this great man to the office of 'Doctor of the Church' shows that tradition is indeed reclaiming the reigns. It's a symbol of hope. And an Englishman at that :)
Thanks to the information Cassini provided, I now retract the fact that Newman was found without error. I do, however maintain and stand-by the praise Pope Pius X gave his development of doctrine and the that his personal life was found to be without blemish. Cassini is absolutely correct: the poison of Modernism was working its way through the Church since the Renaissance.
-
Thanks to the information Cassini provided, I now retract the fact that Newman was found without error. I do, however maintain and stand-by the praise Pope Pius X gave his development of doctrine and the that his personal life was found to be without blemish. Cassini is absolutely correct: the poison of Modernism was working its way through the Church since the Renaissance.
:facepalm: So Newman was good in a few areas, but bad in other areas. It only takes ONE heresy to send a person to hell. You can be orthodox in 10,000 areas but if you're bad in just ONE, you're a goner.
-
:facepalm: So Newman was good in a few areas, but bad in other areas. It only takes ONE heresy to send a person to hell. You can be orthodox in 10,000 areas but if you're bad in just ONE, you're a goner.
Define the actual heresy Pax.
According to the teachings of the Catholic Church, heresy is comprised of matter and form: the matter of a heresy is a belief contrary to a teaching of the Church (revealed in scripture or tradition) which must be believed by Catholics. The form of heresy is pertinacity of will - that is, obstinately adhering to a heretical idea that one knowingly knows is against (denying) a doctrine - an article of faith - of the Church. If a person is guilty of 'pertinacity of will' then he is guilty of FORMAL heresy (the actual sin of heresy).
For there are TWO types of heretics: a formal heretic knowingly and obstinately denies a truth taught by the Catholic Church, while a MATERIAL heretic holds a belief contrary to Church teaching without realizing it is heretical. The key difference lies in the awareness and intent behind their beliefs.
Of course, this becomes a complex issue when the Church itself seems to be guilty of being a material heretic and leading its own priests such as Cardinal Newman astray.
So the real question is: did the Church hold beliefs contrary to its own teachings? Did the Church teaching on this matter qualify as an article of faith? This is what I'm asking Cassini who has clearly done years of research on this topic.
So be careful of your sweeping statements Pax. Modernism is incredibly insidious; one does NOT commit the sin of heresy if they do not realise that their beliefs are against an article of faith.
The error you are condemning Cardinal Newman for was held by the Church itself.
Note: I'm typing this in large format so Cassini can follow the discussion.
-
one does NOT commit the sin of heresy if they do not realise that their beliefs areagainst an article of faith.
Utterly false.
-
First of all, thank you Cassini for some concrete evidence highlighting Newman's error. There is quite a lot of information in this article - 'Galileo, Revelation and the Educated man' (see link that Cassini provides) so I intend to unpack this with some comments and questions:
Wrote Newman: "For that past controversy and its issue have taught me beyond all mistake, that men of the greatest theological knowledge may firmly believe that scientific conclusions are contrary to the Word of God, when they are not so, and pronounce that to be heresy which is truth. It has taught me... that Scripture is not inspired to convey mere secular knowledge, whether about the heaven or the earth, or the race of man; and that I need not fear for Revelation whatever truths may be brought to light by means of observation and experience out of the world of phenomena which environ us.
Comment: Newman seemed to be a loyal son of the Church. For he believed as the Church believed at his time, that they had made a terrible mistake by judging Galileo so harshly for views, which, a century later, had been
"proven" by science to be possible. In fact this entire essay is a defense of the Church for its sudden U-turn :
"Galileo on his knees abjured the heresy that the earth moved...And then at length, in our own day, the doctrine, which was the subject of it, was found to be so harmless in a religious point of view, that the books advocating it were taken off the Index, and the prohibition to print and publish the like was withdrawn."
"Such an alarm never can occur again, for the very reason that it has occurred once."
Comment: Newman seems to be saying here that the Galileo case generated so much controversy, that the Church has learnt its lesson and is now more objective towards new physical "evidence".
"And I seem to myself here to be speaking under the protection and sanction of the Sacred Congregation of the Index itself, which has since the time of Galileo prescribed to itself a line of action, indication of its fearlessness of any results which may happen to religion from physical sciences."
Comment: 'Fearlessness' towards new theories, for Newman considers them non threatening to scripture which, he states, is written for salvation purposes and not for understanding natural science:
"Thus investigation, which Catholics would have suppressed as dangerous, when, in spite of them, it has had its course, results in conclusions favorable to their cause. How little then need we fear the free exercise of reason! How injurious is the suspicion entertained of it by religious men! How true it is that nature and revelation are nothing but two separate communications from the same infinite Truth!
Newman then concludes that:
"If she [the Catholic Church] affirms, as I do not think she will affirm, that everything was made and finished in a moment though Scripture seems to say otherwise, and though science seems to prove otherwise, I affirm it too, and with an inward and sincere assent. And, as her word is to be believed, so her command is to be obeyed. I am as willing then to be silenced on doctrinal matters which are not of faith as to be taught in matters which are. It would be nothing else than a great gain to be rid of the anxiety which haunts a person circuмstanced as I am, lest, by keeping silence on points as that on which I have begun to speak, I should perchance be hiding my talent in a napkin. I should welcome the authority which by its decision allowed me to turn my mind to subjects more congenial to it."
Yes
Question: Cassini, would you agree that Newman was a product of his times? That the Church itself held these views? And that he was merely defending/articulating the actions of the Church. I am not arguing that what he defended was true, only that what he was defending was also held to be true by even the reigning Pope - Pope Pius IX.
Question: Can this view constitute as heresy given it has not been defined clearly by the Church? There is no doubt that he is suggesting error and I concede to the evidence that he was teaching error. I also concede that he was a victim of Modernism as were the Popes who orchestrated the U-turn.
Question: What were Pope Pius X's view on the heliocentric theory?
Yes Boru, Newman was a product of his time. Once pope Pius VII completed the U-turn on a defined and declared Biblical meaning in 1820, Catholicism as a 100% supernatural religion ended and all the heresies defined and declared in the past were abandoned and forgotten. Every pope after Pius VII had to go along with his U-turn. We are told by the Church Satan is the Father of lies. How true, in that he used the old Pythagorean heresies to be believed on the basis that science had proven them true. Thus Satan sprung a trap no pope or clergyman could get out of after Pius VII's U-turn..
That said, in 1820 there were members of the Holy office who rejected this U-turn but they were ignored. But worse, as science itself admitted from 1870 no such proof for the 1820 U-turn ever existed. Einstein himself admitted this, yet no pope responded to this, even though the Church had an Academy of Science at the time. Satan had fooled churchmen into having to defend their U-turn position rather than admitting the real error was in 1820, not 1616 and 1633.
Now given a farmer like myself and many others, Protestants and Catholics, since 1870, were able to figure out the truth, it is beyond belief not one churchman of note could do the same. What we do know is that the U-turn destroyed traditional Faith in the supernatural Creation by God and introduced modernism that led to millions of souls losing the faith and emptying churches as we witness today.
In my synthesis I have had to write:
'That said, this synthesis also recognises that those Catholics, including ourselves in the past, who, having been taught these things throughout our ‘education’ in school and university, Catholic or not, accepted heliocentrism, natural evolution and even the possibility of aliens based on a belief these things were proven by science. So such personal heresies, as ruled by the Catholic Church, are ‘material,’ involving most Catholics today as we know. The Catholic Church makes a distinction between material and formal heresy. Material heresy means in effect ‘holding erroneous doctrines through no fault of their own’ due to inculpable ignorance so ‘is neither a crime nor a sin’ since the individual made the error in good faith. But once the truth has been explained to them, and Biblical heliocentrism is still promoted, the heresy cannot be considered material any longer.
It is not for me to judge anyone, just record the history why and how Satan fooled all to destroy the Catholic faith for millions and hope it improves the faith for others.
My research found revered clergy like Newman and Sheen went along with the delusion, Three popes supported Galileo's exegesis in the three encyclicals on Biblical meaning, including Pope Pius X who promoted Jesuits who 'proved the Earth spins' to be leaders in the Vatican Observatory.
-
Yes Boru, Newman was a product of his time. Once pope Pius VII completed the U-turn on a defined and declared Biblical meaning in 1820, Catholicism as a 100% supernatural religion ended and all the heresies defined and declared in the past were abandoned and forgotten. Every pope after Pius VII had to go along with his U-turn. We are told by the Church Satan is the Father of lies. How true, in that he used the old Pythagorean heresies to be believed on the basis that science had proven them true. Thus Satan sprung a trap no pope or clergyman could get out of after Pius VII's U-turn........................
etc.
Thanks for your reply.
In 1741, the chief adviser to the Holy Office, the Jesuit Fr Pietro Lazza, put pressure on Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758) to admit the Church was wrong.
And then in 1820, this U-turn hinges on the advice of Friar Benedetto Olivieri (1769-1845).
Interesting. The year Olivieri died, John Henry Newman entered the fold. Certainly a lot of chess pieces were being moved during this time-frame.
Anyway, I've started studying your book and it's really made me take a step back and re-consider my understanding of church history and even the part John Henry Newman had to play. There's been a lot to digest in the past few days. I sincerely hope that Mat183 and this Hugh Owen from the Kolbe Centre can help get your book to a wider audience. I checked out the website and immediately felt "at home" so they seem good people to deal with.
-
Yes, the infiltration in the Church goes back to the 1700s (see French Revolution). Also, Pius IX was imprisoned in the Vatican in the 1800s. The 19th century was NOT a time of peace or widespread orthodoxy. St Pius X was *miraculously* elected pope in the early 1900s, else we would’ve had V2 in 1903. As many Freemasons admitted, Pope St Pius X pushed back the Modernists’ plans by “50 years” (ie 1960).
-
I have provided numerous forms of evidence to prove that all those lies and slanders are false. I have researched into his life and read some of his letters. I have read what both St. Pius X and Pope Leo XIII had to say about him and the great esteem they had for him. Do not sit there and tell me I'm indoctrinated and obstinate when you have done nothing but spew these lies and slander simply because the Church you refuse to recognise, gives him the honour he deserves. That is the only reason why you spew. You don't even care if these lies are true or not. For you it's a weapon against the Church you have come to hate.
It's not the Catholic way Pax.
Thanks to Cassini who approached the subject in a careful and charitable way, I have taken the time to further my research in the teachings of John Henry Newman. What I am discovering has left me stunned. To that I would have added confused if Cassini had not already prepared me on how Modernism had concretely entered the Catholic Church in 1820 and effected, one way or another, even the best of men such as Pope Pius X who spoke out against it.
In saying this, I owe the posters Pax and Ladislaus an apology. They were right and I was wrong; there is indeed something very suspect about the teachings of John Henry Newman. And as such, I now ask, how is it possible that Pope Leo XIII made him a cardinal - especially as the conservative English clergy of his day - almost to a man - treated him with suspicion?
For those that wonder at my change of position, I give you the following link to an E-book written by a Richard Sartino:
https://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/A_028br_Newman.htm
It's only 36 pages long, and some of it a little technical, however the information provided makes it clear that John Henry Newman did indeed have an agenda which he subtly and carefully planted into Catholics circles such as the Catholic periodical 'the Rambler'.
Writes Sartino: "Unquestionably Newman was an exceptionally talented writer, capable of analyzing conceptions, terms, and fine shades of meaning that few have since been able to match; yet underneath and behind his writing there is an ambiguity, which many have noticed, that gives the impression that Newman was more clever than straightforward."
When I read those lines my mind flashed back to something Newman had written:"If she [the Catholic Church] affirms, as I do not think she will affirm, that everything was made and finished in a moment, though Scripture seems to say otherwise, and though science seems to prove otherwise, I affirm it too, and with an inward and sincere assent." Sincere assent? This does not read as 'sincere assent'. This reads as a clever way of stating 'the Church cannot affirm this because scripture and science prove otherwise' while appearing to 'submit to the judgement of authority'. Speaking from both sides of his mouth.
Once I realised his method, I began to see what Monsignor Talbot and Cardinal Mannings saw.
-
No apology needed ... I'm glad you took the time to look.
Pope Leo XIII, for his good points, was in fact a bit of a liberal, and he did make some mistakes that green-lighted the early Modernists that St. Pius X had to deal very forcefully with, especially in the Encyclical Providentissimus Deus. Now, the Encyclical itself is quite sound ... but unfortunately he phrased a few of the more theologically nuanced sections in such a way that the Modernists could easily twist them and convince people that the passages mean what they wanted them to mean. Pius IX had to deal with the same thing, where during his own lifetime word got back to him about how some liberals were interpreting his Encyclicals, and he was incensed by it. St. Pius X, in approving of Newman, was basing his little not entirely on an apologetic work by a bishop who was friendly to Newman.
I've read that there was a huge amount of pressure on the Vatican to embrace Newman because there was some thought that they would be instrumental in kicking off a great wave of conversions from Anglicanism and restore the Church in England.
-
Once I realised his method, I began to see what Monsignor Talbot and Cardinal Mannings saw.
Yes, it's the same method that St. Pius X later called out in his condemnations of the Modernists.
-
Thanks to Cassini who approached the subject in a careful and charitable way, I have taken the time to further my research in the teachings of John Henry Newman. What I am discovering has left me stunned. To that I would have added confused if Cassini had not already prepared me on how Modernism had concretely entered the Catholic Church in 1820 and effected, one way or another, even the best of men such as Pope Pius X who spoke out against it.
In saying this, I owe the posters Pax and Ladislaus an apology. They were right and I was wrong; there is indeed something very suspect about the teachings of John Henry Newman. And as such, I now ask, how is it possible that Pope Leo XIII made him a cardinal - especially as the conservative English clergy of his day - almost to a man - treated him with suspicion?
For those that wonder at my change of position, I give you the following link to an E-book written by a Richard Sartino:
https://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/A_028br_Newman.htm
It's only 36 pages long, and some of it a little technical, however the information provided makes it clear that John Henry Newman did indeed have an agenda which he subtly and carefully planted into Catholics circles such as the Catholic periodical 'the Rambler'.
Writes Sartino: "Unquestionably Newman was an exceptionally talented writer, capable of analyzing conceptions, terms, and fine shades of meaning that few have since been able to match; yet underneath and behind his writing there is an ambiguity, which many have noticed, that gives the impression that Newman was more clever than straightforward."
When I read those lines my mind flashed back to something Newman had written:"If she [the Catholic Church] affirms, as I do not think she will affirm, that everything was made and finished in a moment, though Scripture seems to say otherwise, and though science seems to prove otherwise, I affirm it too, and with an inward and sincere assent." Sincere assent? This does not read as 'sincere assent'. This reads as a clever way of stating 'the Church cannot affirm this because scripture and science prove otherwise' while appearing to 'submit to the judgement of authority'. Speaking from both sides of his mouth.
Once I realised his method, I began to see what Monsignor Talbot and Cardinal Mannings saw.
I rejoice you have found the Truth! Now you're part of the team to help warn others of the dangers of Newman.
-
This is wonderful news for anyone who has actually studied Newman with any seriousness. He defended the Faith against Protestant error and has been a big part of many conversions.
St. John Henry Newman, pray for us!
-
This is wonderful news for anyone who has actually studied Newman with any seriousness. He defended the Faith against Protestant error and has been a big part of many conversions.
St. John Henry Newman, pray for us!
:facepalm: are you trolling?
-
:facepalm: are you trolling?
No
-
No
Newman was a modernist and is certainly no saint.
-
Newman was a modernist and is certainly no saint.
I'd encourage you to read the old Catholic encyclopedia article on him. Newman was not viewed as a Modernist by Catholics in his day or afterwards. I'd also encourage reading his writings/
-
I'd encourage you to read the old Catholic encyclopedia article on him. Newman was not viewed as a Modernist by Catholics in his day or afterwards. I'd also encourage reading his writings/
Pope St Pius X said the Catholic encyclopaedia was modernist trash. Newman was a modernist. There is plenty of evidence already posted in this thread.
-
I'd encourage you to read the old Catholic encyclopedia article on him. Newman was not viewed as a Modernist by Catholics in his day or afterwards. I'd also encourage reading his writings/
I'd encourage you to learn about Catholicism. That's an abject lie on top of it. Cardinal Manning stated that he had found no fewer than 10 heresies in the writings of Newman, and 6 different bishops in the British Isles reported Newman to Rome for heresy. Newman fiercely opposed the definition of papal infallibility, and was one of those who contributed to the premature death of St. Anthony Mary Claret. Right after the dogmatic definition, he briefly continued to oppose the dogma, and then backtracked ... sortof, by minimizing infallibility into a meaningless formula and then telling colleagues (in his correspondence) to lay low until a future Pope and Council could fix the error and provide a new interpretation (Mdoernism in a nutshell along with appeal toa future Council). Newman absolutely horrible.
-
Pope St Pius X said the Catholic encyclopaedia was modernist trash. Newman was a modernist. There is plenty of evidence already posted in this thread.
So, this Banez character doesn't care about "evidence". He has a narrative, that Vatican II good (in light of Tradition) and if Conciliar Church says Newman is a saint and doctor, then that's what he is.
Banez, please explain your presence on this forum.
1) Are you even a Traditional Catholic?
2) If you identify as such, how do you define the term Traditional Catholic?
3) Where to you attend Mass most of the time?
4) Are you a Conciliar seminarian?
5) Have you been on this forum before under a similar username?
-
This is wonderful news for anyone who has actually studied Newman with any seriousness. He defended the Faith against Protestant error and has been a big part of many conversions.
St. John Henry Newman, pray for us!
So, Newman's idea of "defend[ing] the Faith against Protestant error" was to water down the Catholic faith in many areas Prots found objectionable in order to make it more palatable to Prots. That's one of the reasons he violently opposed Vatican I.
When you misrepresent the Catholic Faith in order to win "converts", you're only converting them to that misrepresentation of Catholicism and not to objective Catholicism.
Modernist: "Let's get rid of any mention of Sacrifice in the Mass."
Protestant: "OK, now that you did that, I could use that Mass also." (actually said by one Prot who helped write NOM)
Did this Prot "convert" now if he says this same Mass as Catholics? No, he's converted to nothing, and still maintains his heretical view of the "Mass" or whatever he calls it.
-
So, this Banez character doesn't care about "evidence". He has a narrative, that Vatican II good (in light of Tradition) and if Conciliar Church says Newman is a saint and doctor, then that's what he is.
Banez, please explain your presence on this forum.
1) Are you even a Traditional Catholic?
2) If you identify as such, how do you define the term Traditional Catholic?
3) Where to you attend Mass most of the time?
4) Are you a Conciliar seminarian?
5) Have you been on this forum before under a similar username?
1. Yes
2. A Traditional Catholic is one who attends the TLM and is orthodox doctrinally
3. I attend an FSSP parish every Sunday
4. No
5. Yes, but I don't see why that matters
-
1. Yes
2. A Traditional Catholic is one who attends the TLM and is orthodox doctrinally
3. I attend an FSSP parish every Sunday
4. No
5. Yes, but I don't see why that matters
Hi Boru
-
So, FSSP ... not Traditional Catholic, but traditional Catholic (just liturgical preference, smells and bells)
As for having been on the forum under a previous name, the question becomes why you didn't come back under that old account? Was it banned? Were you trolling and wanted a fresh start? That's why it "matters".
Traditional Catholics hold that there's a substantive rupture between the Conciliar Church and the Traditional Catholic Church, that the two are different in kind, not just different in some accidents. "traditional" (lower-case) Trads don't think there's any kind of rupture with Tradition, but just some general veering off too far to the left, that it's more about implementation than about substance, and ya like dem smelz and belz (and aren't a fan of clown Masses and guitar music).
-
So, FSSP ... not Traditional Catholic, but traditional Catholic (just liturgical preference, smells and bells)
As for having been on the forum under a previous name, the question becomes why you didn't come back under that old account? Was it banned? Were you trolling and wanted a fresh start? That's why it "matters".
Traditional Catholics hold that there's a substantive rupture between the Conciliar Church and the Traditional Catholic Church, that the two are different in kind, not just different in some accidents. "traditional" (lower-case) Trads don't think there's any kind of rupture with Tradition, but just some general veering off too far to the left, that it's more about implementation than about substance, and ya like dem smelz and belz (and aren't a fan of clown Masses and guitar music).
The fact that you can say such a thing about the FSSP shows how little you know about our priests.
I created a new account because there was an issue with my email address and I couldn't log in to the old one. Unimportant.
I don't agree with the way you define Traditional Catholicism, but that's fine. Most folks on here don't seem to be interested in dialogue with Traditionalists of different persuasions, so arguing doesn't do any of us any good.
-
I don't agree with the way you define Traditional Catholicism, but that's fine. Most folks on here don't seem to be interested in dialogue with Traditionalists of different persuasions, so arguing doesn't do any of us any good.
Traditional catholicism has been around since V2. It means one who rejects V2 (i.e. heresy) and rejects the new mass (i.e. new liturgy). You can't re-define this term.
You are not a Traditional Catholic. You are not concerned with doctrine but only the liturgy. You are a Trad-liturgist. But you're not a Traditional Catholic.
Doctrine is more important than liturgy, because Doctrine concerns the Faith. One can die a good catholic without access to the sacraments (i.e. see Japan's mass-less catholics for 100+ years). Doctrine > liturgy.
-
Traditional catholicism has been around since V2. It means one who rejects V2 (i.e. heresy) and rejects the new mass (i.e. new liturgy). You can't re-define this term.
You are not a Traditional Catholic. You are not concerned with doctrine but only the liturgy. You are a Trad-liturgist. But you're not a Traditional Catholic.
Doctrine is more important than liturgy, because Doctrine concerns the Faith. One can die a good catholic without access to the sacraments (i.e. see Japan's mass-less catholics for 100+ years). Doctrine > liturgy.
Yes, I distinguish by using capital T for Traditionalist, where it's about the Church's Tradition, the Deposit of Revelation, etc. ... vs. traditionalist (lower case t), referring to just stuff people used to do, like traditionally people have cranberry sauce for Thanksgiving, or traditionally decorate trees for Christmas. Tradition with the capital T refers to theology and not just practices.
-
So, Newman's idea of "defend[ing] the Faith against Protestant error" was to water down the Catholic faith in many areas Prots found objectionable in order to make it more palatable to Prots. That's one of the reasons he violently opposed Vatican I.
When you misrepresent the Catholic Faith in order to win "converts", you're only converting them to that misrepresentation of Catholicism and not to objective Catholicism.
Modernist: "Let's get rid of any mention of Sacrifice in the Mass."
Protestant: "OK, now that you did that, I could use that Mass also." (actually said by one Prot who helped write NOM)
Did this Prot "convert" now if he says this same Mass as Catholics? No, he's converted to nothing, and still maintains his heretical view of the "Mass" or whatever he calls it.
You are saying what is obvious, and I am not saying that in an ill-intentional way, I am saying you are speaking clearly, this presentation says no different really. (also interesting to note The Recusant is working with CT?)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DOorce1s4vs&t=5s
Anyways most of what you say here is backed thoroughly in this lengthy (but surgical imo) video
-
The fact that you can say such a thing about the FSSP shows how little you know about our priests.
I created a new account because there was an issue with my email address and I couldn't log in to the old one. Unimportant.
I don't agree with the way you define Traditional Catholicism, but that's fine. Most folks on here don't seem to be interested in dialogue with Traditionalists of different persuasions, so arguing doesn't do any of us any good.
I'm interested in dialogue. I attend an SSPX chapel, started out with the Fraternity, and have friends in the Resistance. I also was on here recently defending Cardinal Newman. At least, until I started doing exactly what you have just suggested - I started reading his work and began to detect a rather unsettling nuance; one that started with a Catholic truth only to end with a seeded doubt. This made me take a step back and reevaluate my understanding of Newman as a whole; his family background, his methods, his interactions with fellow clerics. What interests me most, is his method. That rambling, rhetoric style of his is cleverly deliberate. It allows him the room to first disarm you with a truth so that while your guard is down, he can follow with suggestions that offer a counter view. This smacks of Protestantism; the truth according to our own reasoning.
Anyway, do not be put off by Cathinfo's two Sede terriers. There are a number of us here who do enjoy an exchange of views so you are very welcome :)