Author Topic: Prevost to declare John Henry Newman a Doctor of the Conciliar Church (Read 10144 times)

Boru · « **Reply #45 on:** August 30, 2025, 12:39:12 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 29, 2025, 08:15:41 PM

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.

Boru · « **Reply #46 on:** August 30, 2025, 12:54:19 PM »

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #47 on:** August 30, 2025, 03:37:45 PM »

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #48 on:** August 30, 2025, 03:38:25 PM »

Quote from: Boru on August 30, 2025, 12:54:19 PM

St. John Henry Newman: Doctor of the Church

Salza/Siscoe/XavierFem Borat continues carrying water for the heretical Conciliar sect.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #49 on:** August 30, 2025, 03:42:50 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 28, 2025, 07:09:58 PM

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.” 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:

WorldsAway · « **Reply #50 on:** August 30, 2025, 03:58:30 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on August 30, 2025, 03:38:25 PM

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

Ladislaus · « **Reply #51 on:** August 30, 2025, 05:56:04 PM »

Quote from: WorldsAway on August 30, 2025, 03:58:30 PM

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

That reminds me, LOL, that Cardinal Manning usually referred to Newman as Doctor Newman ... but that was by way of insult.

Boru · « **Reply #52 on:** August 30, 2025, 07:07:00 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on August 30, 2025, 03:42:50 PM

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:

* Found a cheap copy, so have ordered. Imagine, you recommending a SSPX priest? Wow.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #53 on:** August 30, 2025, 09:50:33 PM »

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.

cassini · « **Reply #54 on:** August 31, 2025, 09:05:20 AM »

Quote from: SimpleMan on August 01, 2025, 08:13:03 AM

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)

Boru · « **Reply #55 on:** August 31, 2025, 08:17:34 PM »

Quote from: cassini on August 31, 2025, 09:05:20 AM

..................

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?

Boru · « **Reply #56 on:** August 31, 2025, 08:38:08 PM »

Quote from: Boru on August 29, 2025, 05:43:16 PM

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.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #57 on:** August 31, 2025, 10:11:27 PM »

Quote from: Boru on August 31, 2025, 08:38:08 PM

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.

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.

Boru · « **Reply #58 on:** **Yesterday** at 05:04:41 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 31, 2025, 10:11:27 PM

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.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #59 on:** **Yesterday** at 08:46:26 AM »

Quote

one does NOT commit the sin of heresy if they do not realise that their beliefs areagainst an article of faith.

Utterly false.

Author Topic: Prevost to declare John Henry Newman a Doctor of the Conciliar Church (Read 10144 times)

Boru

Re: Prevost to declare John Henry Newman a Doctor of the Conciliar Church

Boru

Re: Prevost to declare John Henry Newman a Doctor of the Conciliar Church

Ladislaus

Re: Prevost to declare John Henry Newman a Doctor of the Conciliar Church

Ladislaus

Re: Prevost to declare John Henry Newman a Doctor of the Conciliar Church

Ladislaus

Re: Prevost to declare John Henry Newman a Doctor of the Conciliar Church

WorldsAway

Re: Prevost to declare John Henry Newman a Doctor of the Conciliar Church

Ladislaus

Re: Prevost to declare John Henry Newman a Doctor of the Conciliar Church

Boru

Re: Prevost to declare John Henry Newman a Doctor of the Conciliar Church

Pax Vobis

Re: Prevost to declare John Henry Newman a Doctor of the Conciliar Church

cassini

Re: Prevost to declare John Henry Newman a Doctor of the Conciliar Church

Boru

Re: Prevost to declare John Henry Newman a Doctor of the Conciliar Church

Boru

Re: Prevost to declare John Henry Newman a Doctor of the Conciliar Church

Pax Vobis

Re: Prevost to declare John Henry Newman a Doctor of the Conciliar Church

Boru

Re: Prevost to declare John Henry Newman a Doctor of the Conciliar Church

Pax Vobis

Re: Prevost to declare John Henry Newman a Doctor of the Conciliar Church