Problem is, they will not be "canonizing" him according to a traditional conception of heroic virtue, but because his non-Thomistic language is easy to corrupt, and twist into a promotion of dogmatic evolution (which they will call development of doctrine, but which Newman himself would call a corruption of doctrine).
It was a corruption of Newman's thought that the heretics latched onto in order to legitimize their new modernist "reforms."
Look for the "development of doctrine" to be given prominence in his bogus canonization.
I believe he is in heaven, but his canonization will not really be a canonization in the proper sense (just like Padre Pio's isn't).
Remember this is the conciliar church and not the Catholic Church that is doing the canonization.Do you believe Francis is the Pope?
We continue to wait for the restoration of the proper form of canonization which means Rome must be Catholic again.
Do you believe Francis is the Pope?
If so, why do you think he has lost the authority to canonise?
| (https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/Images/B_000_WhatPeopleAreSaying02_Cir_sm.jpg) (https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B000_WhatPeopleAreCommenting.htm) |
Hello TIA,
I have to confess that I was surprised when I first read on your website your position on Newman as a liberal (https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f004ht_Liberal_Modernist_Progressive.htm). Second thoughts and a little research, however, showed me that in fact he had been in the vanguard of the opposition to the dogma of Papal Infallibility and closely acquainted with the left wing of Vatican Council I.
Also his concept of conscience is very much the same as that of the Modernists who followed him, that is, it supposes a kind of revelation of God within the soul of each person.
Now that Benedict XVI is going to beatify Newman, he ordered his body to be removed from his actual burial site to another place in order to favor the public cult. Today, breaking news was released: Newman was an alleged ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, and he supposedly is buried along with his male partner at his express request. To hide his ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity would be the real reason for moving him to another place.
I send you the news with source, name, dates and addresses. If this is proved to be true, it is a revelation that confirms your points, isn't it?
Regards,
In Christ Jesus,
E.J.Canterbury, England (ENI) - British gαy rights activist Peter Tatchell has described the Vatican's instruction that the body of Cardinal John Henry Newman be moved from its grave at a cemetery in the English town of Rednal to a special new resting place at the nearby Birmingham Oratory as "an act of religious desecration and moral vandalism." In an interview with Ecuмenical News International, Tatchell said, "Newman repeatedly made it clear that he wanted to be buried next to his life-long partner, Ambrose St. John. No one gave the Pope permission to defy Newman's wishes. The re-burial has only one aim in mind: to cover up Newman's ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and to disavow his love for another man. It is an act of shameless dishonesty and personal betrayal by the gαy-hating Catholic Church." (Ecuмenical News International / News Highlights / 18 August 2008)
Ecuмenical News International
PO Box 2100
CH - 1211 Geneva 2
Switzerland
Tel: (41-22) 791 6088/6111 (http://tel:791 6088/6111) Fax: (41-22) 788 7244 (http://tel:788 7244)
ENI e-mail - www.eni.ch (eni@eni.ch)(https://www.traditioninaction.org/images/burbtn.gif)[color][font]
TIA responds:
Hello Mr. E.J.,
We thank you for sending us this news, and we are passing it on to our readers.
Certainly we are on the same page regarding your analysis of Cardinal John Henry Newman as a liberal and pre-Modernist. We also believe his thesis on conscience is similar to that of the Modernists.
However, regarding the affirmation that Cardinal Newman was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, it is our opinion that we should take the data into consideration but be cautious not to reach precipitate conclusions.
As far as we know, the mentioned Peter Tatchell is a recognized ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ who was the chairman of the London group called Outrage. In 1995 Tatchell blackmailed Cardinal Basil Hume into publishing a statement favoring ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity. If he refused to do so, Tatchell said he would call a press conference (as he did) to disclose private information regarding Cardinal Hume's customs. Hume published the note (as Tatchell had asked at a time he chose) shortly before the threatened press conference.
Prior to this, the same Tatchell had obliged 10 bishops of the so-called Church of England to publicly confess their ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, and 34 other Anglican bishops to issue a statement saying that "one can simultaneously be gαy and a good Christian." The docuмents regarding these and other pressure tactics exercised by Tatchell on Cardinal Hume and Anglican prelates can be found in A.S. Guimarães' Vatican II, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and Pedophilia (https://www.traditioninaction.org/books.htm#homo) (Los Angeles: TIA, 2004, pp.140-146).
This same scandalous man appears to be the only source of the news you sent us about Cardinal Newman. He is morally condemnable as a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ and a blackmailer, but, as far as we know, he has not been proved wrong in his accusations.
We are carefully watching the development of this case without making any premature judgment.
Cordially,
TIA correspondence desk[/font][/color]
“St John's longest friendship was with John Henry Newman (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_Newman), and the two shared communitarian life for 32 years from 1843 (when St John was 28.
4] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrose_St._John#cite_note-4) Newman wrote after St John's death: "I have ever thought no bereavement was equal to that of a husband's or a wife's, but I feel it difficult to believe that any can be greater, or any one's sorrow greater, than mine."[5] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrose_St._John#cite_note-5) He was a man of marked individuality and Newman paid tribute to him in his Apologia, and directed that he himself be buried in the same grave as St. John: "I wish, with all my heart, to be buried in Fr Ambrose St John's grave — and I give this as my last, my imperative will."[6] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrose_St._John#cite_note-6) The pall over Newman's coffin bore the cardinal's motto, Cor ad cor loquitur (Heart speaks to heart), a phrase he took from Francis de Sales (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_de_Sales), and quoted some 25 years earlier in a letter on university preaching. He incorporated these words into his famous work on education The Idea of a University.[7] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrose_St._John#cite_note-7)
The two share a memorial stone inscribed with the words he had chosen: Ex umbris et imaginibus in veritatem ("Out of shadows and phantasms into the truth").In 2008, the Vatican ordered that Fr Ambrose St John's remains be separated from those of Newman, contrary to Newman's dying wishes, in preparation for Newman's possible canonisation (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonisation). Campaigners for ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ rights within the Church speculated the Vatican was embarrassed by the relationship between the two though historians and scholars of the period suggest this is a misunderstanding of the concept of friendship that existed at the time.[8] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrose_St._John#cite_note-8) Newman's remains (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_Newman#Movement_of_remains) in the shared grave were exhumed as part of a plan to move them to the Oratory in Birmingham city centre. At the exhumation, Newman's wooden coffin was found to have disintegrated and the bodies completely decayed.[9] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrose_St._John#cite_note-9)”
Can you show me where in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, or even in the 1992 modernist CCC the canonization of saints is discussed?
It isn’t.
Could you show me hoe canonizations meet the requirements of papal infallibility as defined at Vatican I?
They don’t.
Can you show me any binding CHURCH teaching that says canonizations are de fide?
There isn’t.
For the honor of the Blessed Trinity, the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the increase of the Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and own own, after due deliberation and frequent prayer for divine assistance, and having sought the counsel of many of our brother bishops, we declare and define Blessed John XXIII, John Paul II, be saints, and we enroll them among the saints, decreeing that they are to be venerated as such by the whole Church. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen
Holy Father, Holy Church, trusting in the Lord’s promise to send upon her the Spirit of Truth, who in every age keeps the supreme Magisterium immune from error, most earnestly beseeches Your Holiness to enroll these, her elect, among the Saints.
Could you show me hoe canonizations meet the requirements of papal infallibility as defined at Vatican I?
Can you show me where in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, or even in the 1992 modernist CCC the canonization of saints is discussed?I wonder how you'd react to someone "choosing" not to recognise the canonisation of St. Thomas the way you do for Pope St. John XXIII.
It isn’t.
Could you show me hoe canonizations meet the requirements of papal infallibility as defined at Vatican I?
They don’t.
Can you show me any binding CHURCH teaching that says canonizations are de fide?
There isn’t.
Even though one is not strictly a heretic for denying this infallibility, rejecting a theologically certain proposition still constitutes a mortal sin against faith.
That's not true. Catholics are bound by the teaching of the magisterium and not by majority opinions of professional classes. Have you ever read a professio fidei which has been in use by the Church?
... it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.
I wonder how you'd react to someone "choosing" not to recognise the canonisation of St. Thomas the way you do for Pope St. John XXIII.
It's common teaching that the denial of matters that are theologically certain entails mortal sin against faith.
You do so at your own peril.
You need to admit to yourself the fact that you reject the teaching of St. Thomas and most theologians on the subject
... all due to your R&R wishful thinking. Please research the gravity of denying Catholic truths that are theologically certain.
This disgusting unfounded rumor was started by sodomite revolutionaries in their lame attempt to normalize their own sinful behavior.Was Cardinal Newman 'gαy'?
We've gone through this many times. According to The Catholic Encyclopedia, it is the GENERAL view among Catholic theologians (meaning majority opinion) that the infallibility of canonizations is THEOLOGICALLY CERTAIN. Even though one is not strictly a heretic for denying this infallibility, rejecting a theologically certain proposition still constitutes a mortal sin against faith. So, not, it's not de fide (although some theologians hold it to be so), but it's also not a take-it-of-leave-it-as-it-suits-you proposition.
You reject the infallibility of canonizations simply because it's inconvenient for your dogmatic R&R position. If you look at the canonization formula, which has been retained by the V2 papal claimants, it clearly invokes infallibility.
What is lacking here in the notes of infallibility? By the authority of Peter and Paul (and his own), he "declares and defines" that they are saints, decreeing that they are to be venerated as such by the whole Church. To claim that something pronounced with such authority and solemn language can be in error constitutes nothing less than an insult to the Church and to the Holy Spirit. Snap out of this, man.
Also, the formula itself was preceded by orations/petitions requesting the assistance of the Holy Spirit against error in the judgment.
So the Church explicitly invokes the Holy Spirit for immunity from error in this judgment, and then uses solemn language and full papal authority to DEFINE this matter and make it binding on the whole Church. If this is not infallible, then almost nothing is. It not only meets every single one of the notes of infallibility, but even explicitly invokes the "immun[ity] from error" granted to the Magisterium by the Holy Spirit. It also rejects the notion that this is not a "matter of faith and morals" by declaring it an act of the Magisterium. You've got absolutely NOTHING to stand on except your own wishful thinking.
A pope can no more DEFINE a saint then he can DEFINE Chevy is better than RAM (which would be a clear indication of sedevacantism, by the way).:laugh1: Good one.
| (https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/proxy/6QQR-tqlKbSikRy3fSkgtecYLrQctzQzzbje2Vh0IhA7xWX_sfFImG7Z5Mi5RUrkpMqA_aBEiVHT9tETQhDweJoDLlwV2P1XyDzFZbt2sU_fFgO50Xk75eJnffILT0jqQNlHxury=s0-d) (http://www.lenola.it/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Mons.-Sciacca-e-Benedetto-XVI-.jpg) |
| Bp. Sciacca and Pope Benedict XVI |
Is the Pope infallible when he proclaims a new saint?“According to the prevailing doctrine of the Church, when the Pope canonizes a saint his judgment is infallible. As is known, canonization is the decree with which the Pope solemnly proclaims that the heavenly glory shines upon the Blessed and extends the cult of the new saint to the universal Church in a binding and definitive manner. There is no question then that canonization is an act carried out by the Petrine primate. At the same time, however, it should not be considered infallible according to the infallibility criteria set out in the First Vatican Council’s dogmatic constitution “Pastor aeternus”.”So, according to you, this means the Pope can make a mistake when he proclaims someone a saint?“That’s not what I said. I am not denying that the decree issued for a canonization cause is definitive, so it would be rash and indeed unholy to state that the Pope can make a mistake. What I am saying, is that the proclamation of a person’s sainthood is not a truth of faith because it is not a dogmatic definition and is not directly or explicitly linked to a truth of faith or a moral truth contained in the revelation, but is only indirectly linked to this. It is no coincidence that neither the Code of Canon Law of 1917 nor the one currently in force, nor the Catechism of the Catholic Church present the Church’s doctrine regarding canonizations.”Monsignor, it has to be said though that the majority of those who support the infallibility idea have an important ally on their side: St. Thomas…“Of course, I am well aware of that. Thomas Aquinas is the most prestigious author supporting this theory. But it should be said that the use of the concept of infallibility and of language relating to it, in a context that is so far from that of the 19th century when the First Vatican Council was held, risks being anachronistic. St. Thomas placed canonization half way between things that pertain to the faith and judgments on certain factors that can be contaminated by false testimonies, concluding that the Church could not make mistakes: in fact, he claimed that: “thinking that judgment is infallible, is holy.” As I said before and I repeat again, the “Pastor aeternus” rigorously defines and restricts the concept of papal infallibility which could previously also encompass and contain or be likened to the concepts of “inerrancy” and “indefectibility” in relation to the Church. Canonization is like a doctrine which cannot be contested but which cannot be defined as a doctrine of faith as all faithful must necessarily believe in it.”And what about the words which Pope Benedict XIV, born Prospero Lambertini, used in the “De servorum Dei beatificatione et beatorum canonisatione”, about the non-infallibility theory “smelling of heresy”?“His theory is not binding as it forms part of the work he did as a great canonist, but as part of his private studies. It has nothing to do with his pontifical magisterium.But there was a doctrinal text issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in May 1998 which also mentions infallibility in canonizations.“It is patently clear that the purpose of the passage in question is purely illustrative and is not intended as a definition. The recurring argument according to which the Church cannot teach or accept mistakes is intrinsically weak in this case. But saying that an act is not infallible does not mean to say that the act is wrong or deceiving. Indeed, the mistake may have been made either rarely or never. Canonization, which everyone admits does not derive directly from faith, is never an actual definition relating to faith or tradition…”Is there are any historical evidence to support your stance?“The “protestatio” formula used until Leo X’s pontificate seems to me to be particularly revealing regarding the Pope’s awareness of infallibility which was problematic at the very least. Immediately prior to proceeding with the act of canonization, the Popes solemnly and publicly declared that they had no intention of acting against the faith, the Catholic Church or God’s honour. Then there are the brief prayers which Mgr. Antonio Bacci-turned-cardinal who cultivated the “stylus Curiae” pronounced on behalf of the Pope during the canonization rites in St. Peter’s after the peroration of the consistorial lawyer. These included expressions which don’t do much to bolster the infallibility theory, for example: "inerrans oraculum" (inerrant, non infallible oracle), "immutabile sententiam" (unchangeable, non infallible decree) and "expectatissimam sententiam" (long-awaited, non infallible decree). Furthermore, a historian like Heinrich Hoffmann admitted that one objection towards infallibility could stem from the fact that the Popes expressed hesitation - "mentem vacillantem" - just before the solemn declaration, invoking "specialem Sancti Spiritus assistentiam", the special assistance of the Holy Spirit. This was within the canonization rite celebrated up until the reform introduced by Paul VI.Sorry, what exactly is canonization then?“It is the definitive and immutable conclusion of a process; it is the final decree issued at the end of a historical and canonic process which relates to a real historical question. To incorporate it in infallibility means extending the concept of infallibility itself way beyond the limits defined by the First Vatican Council.”And yet today, at the moment of the proclamation, the Pope says “decernimus e definimus”, in other words “we decree and define”. It basically sounds like a “definition”…“This is why I agree with some important canonists who suggest setting aside the formula currently used to define the truths of faith, proposing instead a more suitable formula: “declaramus”, “we declare”. As one “classical” theologian of last century’s Roman school of thought, Mgr. Antonio Piolanti, one of the conditions for infallibility requires the Pope through the style of the formula used, to demonstrate a clear intention of presenting as dogma some truth within the revelation to the entire Church. As was the case with the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and the dogma of the Assumption in 1950.
The Church of God, in her sacred liturgy, venerates "saints" which are none but rather burn in hell.
It's common teaching that the denial of matters that are theologically certain entails mortal sin against faith. You do so at your own peril. You need to admit to yourself the fact that you reject the teaching of St. Thomas and most theologians on the subject ... all due to your R&R wishful thinking. Please research the gravity of denying Catholic truths that are theologically certain.
Pope Pius IX in Tuas Libenter:Quote... it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.
Is any of this true?It is true that the vicious accuser, Peter Thatchell, a blackmailer and chairman of Outrage, is desirous of "outing" cdl .Newman for his own evil purposes with no evidence except that they were priests who lived together in community (which is a common way for priests to live) and had a very close friendship. There is no reason to support and advance Peter Thatchell's cause.
The story originated with Radical ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activist, Peter TatchelActually, Anglicans at the time considered it "unmanly" to be single, and Newman was accused of "effeminacy" at the time, in some part due to an image of him as living alone and writing a lot.
http://www.realclearreligion.com/index_files/e5f8488c4feced4c94abce26acaaee2b-449.html (http://www.realclearreligion.com/index_files/e5f8488c4feced4c94abce26acaaee2b-449.html)
When I'll be pope, I'll order to torture all who utter or imply such statements, until they recant.That you would want to be Pope is a manifestation of the fact that you are not qualified for the job.
That you would want to be Pope is a manifestation of the fact that you are not qualified for the job.Indeed. +Francis turned down an offer by +Benedict to be the secretary of state. He didn't want this job to hurt his chances of becoming pope. He's obviously not qualified, ha ha.
Quote from: StruthioWhen I'll be pope, I'll order to torture all who utter or imply such statements, until they recant.
That you would want to be Pope is a manifestation of the fact that you are not qualified for the job.
Actually, Anglicans at the time considered it "unmanly" to be single, and Newman was accused of "effeminacy" at the time, in some part due to an image of him as living alone and writing a lot.Yes, I agree that some of these slurs predated Tatchell, however it was Tatchell's slur which was picked up and spread by Atila/ Marian, TIA.
I think this says a lot more about the accusers than it does about him, though. And several writers have argued against Newman being "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ".
But some of these slurs did predate Tatchell.
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/07/so-canonizations-infallible-or-not.html (https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/07/so-canonizations-infallible-or-not.html)Bishop Giuseppe Sciacca, a remarkable prelate and Canon Lawyer and current Adjunct Secretary of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, granted days ago the following interview (http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/canonizzazioni-canonizations-canonizaciones-35158/)to La Stampa (posted here for the record of current events):
This is my position:
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2018/12/follow-up-article-infallibility-of.html (https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2018/12/follow-up-article-infallibility-of.html)
Duly noted. Your position is a bunch of non-Catholic Modernist crap ... invented out of wishful thinking for no other reason than to support R&R.
I understand why you must convince yourself of that (as was explained in the article).
Normally, it takes many years to become saint. Normally, love for Jesus is priority over a friend. Especially a priest.
From. Fr. Leonard Feeney in 1954 (actually, the whole December 1954 POINT is worth reading -
https://fatherfeeney.wordpress.com/2009/08/22/the-point-december-1954
(And just to mention it, I happened to read Card. Newman's "Apologia" - and you get the distinct impression that he became Catholic only because the truth of the Church's claims could not be denied: That the seat of the Church was indeed in Rome, and the early writings and Fathers profess the Papacy and an allegiance to it - in other words, he came into the Church, but kind of "holding his nose" as he did so. If he could have gotten out of it, he would have.)
THE PRESENT POSITION OF CARDINAL NEWMAN - Fr. Feeney - The Point - Dec. 1954
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 Jєωs.
I am honestly struggling more and more with the question of whether dogmatic R&Rers even have the Catholic faith. Yes, that means you, SeanJohnson. You speak of the Church as if it were any other human political organization and deny one teaching after another regarding the Church's holiness, and the indefectibility of her Magisterium and Universal Discipline. I don't know what it is you believe in, but it is not in the Catholic Church. And the complete irony is that you think like the worst Modernists when it comes to ecclesiology all the while pretending to be enemies of Modernism. It's interesting how the devil works, turning the anti-Modernists into Modernists without their actually even being aware of it.You’re not alone, I struggle with this also.
1: Ladislaus said that a majority of theologians considered the infallibility of canonizations "theologically certain" such that denial of it, while not heresy, is mortal sin.A majority of theologians do consider canonizations theologically certain. However, a denial of a theologically certain act does not equal a mortal sin. Only if one denies such an act without serious reasons, makes it a mortal sin. Are there serious reasons to question the new process of canonization? Yes. Do R&R people "deny" these canonizations? I don't, but I question them. Is there justification to do so? Certainly.
A majority of theologians do consider canonizations theologically certain. However, a denial of a theologically certain act does not equal a mortal sin. Only if one denies such an act without serious reasons, makes it a mortal sin. Are there serious reasons to question the new process of canonization? Yes. Do R&R people "deny" these canonizations? I don't, but I question them. Is there justification to do so? Certainly.Well in fairness to Ladislaus, his argument isn't against what you say in the last paragraph here. He'd say that's fair. What he'd reject, and say is heretical, is the idea that we know we have a pope, but yet we doubt or reject everything else.
.
Comparing canonizations from the pre-V2 era to the ones done currently is comparing apples to oranges. The past theologians who said that canonizations were "theologically certain" were talking about a specific process which no longer exists. Therefore, the current canonization process, in my opinion, no longer carries this elevated status.
.
I'm with Sean Johnson on this one. With everything that has gone on in new-rome for the past 50 years, there's enough evidence to question EVERYTHING that has happened. Nothing in the post-V2 era is "theologically certain". We may or may not have a pope. The new mass may or may not be valid. The V2 priests and bishops may or may not be real. Yet we are supposed to swallow new-canonizations without an objection? Makes no sense.
Normally, it takes many years to become saint. Normally, love for Jesus is priority over a friend. Especially a priest.How is this relevant?
From. Fr. Leonard Feeney in 1954 (actually, the whole December 1954 POINT is worth reading -Who is the Q. here and who the A?
https://fatherfeeney.wordpress.com/2009/08/22/the-point-december-1954
(And just to mention it, I happened to read Card. Newman's "Apologia" - and you get the distinct impression that he became Catholic only because the truth of the Church's claims could not be denied: That the seat of the Church was indeed in Rome, and the early writings and Fathers profess the Papacy and an allegiance to it - in other words, he came into the Church, but kind of "holding his nose" as he did so. If he could have gotten out of it, he would have.)
THE PRESENT POSITION OF CARDINAL NEWMAN - Fr. Feeney - The Point - Dec. 1954
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 Jєωs.
Well in fairness to Ladislaus, his argument isn't against what you say in the last paragraph here. He'd say that's fair.My reply was not to Ladislaus but your false characterization of what he said. You (I assume by accident) left out the phrase "without serious reason" as a justification for questioning a theologically certain ideal.
I am honestly struggling more and more with the question of whether dogmatic R&Rers even have the Catholic faith. Yes, that means you, SeanJohnson. You speak of the Church as if it were any other human political organization and deny one teaching after another regarding the Church's holiness, and the indefectibility of her Magisterium and Universal Discipline. I don't know what it is you believe in, but it is not in the Catholic Church. And the complete irony is that you think like the worst Modernists when it comes to ecclesiology all the while pretending to be enemies of Modernism. It's interesting how the devil works, turning the anti-Modernists into Modernists without their actually even being aware of it.
So I assume you're all ok with people declaring they don't believe St. Thomas or St. Jerome, or even St. Peter, are saints, seeing as almost all of you are of the consensus that anyone can pick and choose what canonisations they'd like to acknowledge?If canonizations are not secondary objects of the Churchs infallibilty then we can not know with certainty that either of these men are in Heaven.
My reply was not to Ladislaus but your false characterization of what he said. You (I assume by accident) left out the phrase "without serious reason" as a justification for questioning a theologically certain ideal.Yes, it was an accident.
The rest of my post was general in nature.
So I assume you're all ok with people declaring they don't believe St. Thomas or St. Jerome, or even St. Peter, are saints, seeing as almost all of you are of the consensus that anyone can pick and choose what canonisations they'd like to acknowledge?Nope. For two reasons:
A majority of theologians do consider canonizations theologically certain. However, a denial of a theologically certain act does not equal a mortal sin. Only if one denies such an act without serious reasons, makes it a mortal sin. Are there serious reasons to question the new process of canonization? Yes. Do R&R people "deny" these canonizations? I don't, but I question them. Is there justification to do so? Certainly.
Nope. For two reasons:I don't understand this whole business about the canonisation process. The Church established the previous process. It wasn't the one She always had for all of Her history, and since She established it She can change it at will. It doesn't make sense to me that a layman can declare that he disagrees with the new process and therefore that canonisations are now fallible when they once weren't, as many here have(let's be real, no one here has ever questioned a single canonisation before the V2 ones started rolling in). Either all canonisations are fallible or none are. Now one can take the position, as you have, that all canonisations fallible but the new ones are just more fallible due to a lesser degree of vetting. But that reduces canonisation to an entirely human institution and still gives us the possibility, however slight, that a number of saints weren't saints. Under that belief, for all we know some saints could be horrible people. For all we know St. Peter may not be a saint! It's simply untenable.
1: I believe that the former, more rigorous canonization process was so careful that even if it isn't infallible per se, it is for all intents and purposes not subject to error. Similar to a fact claim regarding who the pope is (when its not controversial) or something like the lawfulness of communion in one kind.
2: I still think, and this is not gonna be a popular opinion on this forum, that statements like "John Paul II is not a saint" are presumptuous. At least as far as we know, Francis is the Pope. And the Pope did say he was a saint. I have doubts, and I have reservations, and because of those doubts and reservations, I choose not to pray to or venerate him. But I hold my position loosely, in a state of *doubt*, based on both the scandalous actions he engaged in and the lack of rigor in the modern process. But I wouldn't say I don't believe he's a saint, just that i have reservations and doubts.
I don't think you could say the same about St Thomas or St Jerome because their canonizations have been so widely accepted, for such a long time, and furthermore they were subjected to a far more rigorous tribunal. SO there's a lot LESS reason for doubt there. Really, I don't see any reasons to doubt, let alone grave reasons.
Forlorn and 2Vermont, pre-V2 canonizations vs current ones are apples to oranges. Pre-V2 ones are theologically certain, yet still not “de fide”. The current process (or lack of one) is justification for questions and doubts.Have some integrity? Even if ultimately this is a question on whether Francis is a true pope, us bringing that up does not mean either one of us LACKS integrity. How about you stop casting aspersions on our characters? And too bad if YOU don't want to make this a sede debate. If that's where it goes, that's where it goes.
Don’t make this into some sede debate. Have some integrity.
I don't understand this whole business about the canonisation process. The Church established the previous process. It wasn't the one She always had for all of Her history, and since She established it She can change it at will. It doesn't make sense to me that a layman can declare that he disagrees with the new process and therefore that canonisations are now fallible when they once weren't, as many here have(let's be real, no one here has ever questioned a single canonisation before the V2 ones started rolling in). Either all canonisations are fallible or none are. Now one can take the position, as you have, that all canonisations fallible but the new ones are just more fallible due to a lesser degree of vetting. But that reduces canonisation to an entirely human institution and still gives us the possibility, however slight, that a number of saints weren't saints. Under that belief, for all we know some saints could be horrible people. For all we know St. Peter may not be a saint! It's simply untenable.Agreed.
Have some integrity? Even if ultimately this is a question on whether Francis is a true pope, us bringing that up does not mean either one of us LACKS integrity. And too bad if YOU don't want to make this a sede debate. If that's where it goes, that's where it goes.
Having said that, our comments/questions are valid regardless of the sedevacante question. There has not always been "a process". There are numerous saints from early on that did not go through "a process". We, as Catholics, believe that they are without a doubt in Heaven because....the Church declared it so.
I don't understand this whole business about the canonisation process. The Church established the previous process. It wasn't the one She always had for all of Her history, and since She established it She can change it at will. It doesn't make sense to me that a layman can declare that he disagrees with the new process and therefore that canonisations are now fallible when they once weren't, as many here have(let's be real, no one here has ever questioned a single canonisation before the V2 ones started rolling in). Either all canonisations are fallible or none are. Now one can take the position, as you have, that all canonisations fallible but the new ones are just more fallible due to a lesser degree of vetting. But that reduces canonisation to an entirely human institution and still gives us the possibility, however slight, that a number of saints weren't saints. Under that belief, for all we know some saints could be horrible people. For all we know St. Peter may not be a saint! It's simply untenable.Essentially, your argument boils down to this (already refuted in the article I supplied) position:
Personally I'd agree with your point #2, where it's probably most prudent to not declare that he isn't a saint but also not to venerate him(we're never required to pray to every saint) just in case, but that's because I have doubts about the Pope. If I was certain Francis was Pope, I'd be certain of his canonisations.
QED in my previous post.Ladislaus, I actually think it falls under the Church's infallibility rather than papal infallibility.
Essentially, your argument boils down to this (already refuted in the article I supplied) position:It's not personal charisma, it's the solemn ruling of the Church. Since when did His Holiness Sean Johnson have the authority to declare that the new canonisation process isn't up to his standards and is therefore invalid?
If Bergoglio is a true pope, he can create any process he wants, (eg., He can approach a bubble gum machine at Walmart, and solemnly declare that if a green gum ball, or red, blue, or white, comes out, it means Paul Vi is a saint), and magic happens!
He always has the winning lottery ticket, in virtue of being pope!
The implicit “mechanics” behind this notion are that the pope has a personal charisma allowing him to know who is saved, and who is damned, and therefore that the basis of canonization is private revelation.
Last I heard, private revelations were not infallible.
But that is precisely what is implicit in the argument of those who make the process of no account.
It's not personal charisma, it's the solemn ruling of the Church. Since when did His Holiness Sean Johnson have the authority to declare that the new canonisation process isn't up to his standards and is therefore invalid?The modernists themselves don’t consider their own canonizations infallible.
The modernists themselves don’t consider their own canonizations infallible.Absolutely true. In fact, as much as +JPII is worshipped, there are many theologians who are saying that his canonization should be re-opened for discussion because of new abuse info which calls into question the lack of process and lack of a devil's advocate.
Absolutely true. In fact, as much as +JPII is worshipped, there are many theologians who are saying that his canonization should be re-opened for discussion because of new abuse info which calls into question the lack of process and lack of a devil's advocate.In the early Church there was no such complex and thorough process as we had before Vatican 2. Would you like to list the early saints you doubt too?
.
I'm sorry many of you can't handle that certain Church rulings can be in error, but being that canonizations are of the human aspect of the Church, therefore they are able to be wrong from time to time. This is not the first time in history that a canonization has been debated.
In the early Church there was no such complex and thorough process as we had before Vatican 2. Would you like to list the early saints you doubt too?The article I posted explains the different criteria regarding equipollent canonizations.
In the early Church there was no such complex and thorough process as we had before Vatican 2.The Church, just like our spiritual life, always moves forward, always improves. Especially true for human process and disciplinary decisions. The early Church mostly canonized martyrs and those whose sanctity was unquestionable. The post V2 gutting of the process is neither prudent nor reasonable, as even V2 officials say it's extreme.
ByzCat3000, I agree. In addition, with new-rome gutting the devils advocate process, no longer does the term “saint” mean one who is known for heroic sanctity, but it simply means that they saved their soul. In fact, many current theologians are casting doubts on his canonization precisely because of his negligence in the abuse scandals, which is coming to light. Can I agree that the Church is simply saying he saved his soul? Yes. I do not believe the new canonization process is able to determine heroic sanctity, nor is it their goal any longer. In summary, a “saint” no longer means what it used to mean. Add this to the list of post V2 definition changes. No one should be surprised.Saving one's soul is fairly easy. I don't mean that in the Protestant sense, of course. Obviously we have to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. But the thief on the cross, despite his horrible life, repented in his final moments and was saved. There seem to be numerous ways John Paul II could've saved his soul. Perhaps he did indeed repent of his horrible actions in his final moments. Maybe somehow, only God knows for sure, he was in good faith not convinced his actions were bad, and thus was only in venial sin despite the objectively grave matter.
Actually, Anglicans at the time considered it "unmanly" to be single, and Newman was accused of "effeminacy" at the time, in some part due to an image of him as living alone and writing a lot.
I think this says a lot more about the accusers than it does about him, though. And several writers have argued against Newman being "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ".
But some of these slurs did predate Tatchell.
By far the bigger issue to me is, is this man (JPII) an example of heroic virtue? And I have a hard time believing that.
Newman's relationship with his best friend is very distasteful. First we got Paul VI, and now Newman. This bodes ill.What exactly do you find "distasteful" about an innocent friendship. Are your ideas being perverted by the false allegation made by a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activist?
Newman was elevated to the rank of cardinal in the consistory of 12 May 1879 by Pope Leo XIII.
Wikipedia
I have a hard time believing Pope St. Pius X made a notorious fag a cardinal.You're repeating the slur of an actual notorious fag like Tatchell.
What exactly do you find "distasteful" about an innocent friendship. Are your ideas being perverted by the false allegation made by a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activist?
You're repeating the slur of an actual notorious fag like Tatchell.
You shouldn't be doing that. It is far from established that Newman was any sort of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ whatsoever, let alone was "notorious".
Your statement is not just distasteful, it goes against a basic concern for truth.
Newman was elevated to the rank of cardinal in the consistory of 12 May 1879 by Pope Leo XIII.
Wikipedia
Hello Stanley-OK, I see. Sorry. +1 for the -1.
You misunderstood my sarcasm, I think:
I am rejecting the preposterous slander that Newman was a fag.
Viva, this has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.Thank you, Nadir and others. I am sorry that I had posted my previous posts about John Henry Newman. I feel terrible that I did that.
Don't allow yourself to be dragged down by all the bad things going on in the Church at this time (not to say there has not always been bad things going on).
Did you read the link Cera presented?
In the early Church there was no such complex and thorough process as we had before Vatican 2. Would you like to list the early saints you doubt too?If I recall correctly, the "early church", instead of a complex process, had an organic one. All the people we are obliged to venerate on such an ordinary magisterium ground were widely venerated over centuries of time.
Against the homo theory: http://communio.stblogs.org/index.php/2008/09/newman-scholar-clarifies-quest/ (http://communio.stblogs.org/index.php/2008/09/newman-scholar-clarifies-quest/)
Newman scholar clarifies questions of Cardinal’s sɛҳuąƖity (http://communio.stblogs.org/index.php/2008/09/newman-scholar-clarifies-quest/)
Wednesday, 03 September 2008 14:58 0 Comments (http://communio.stblogs.org/index.php/2008/09/newman-scholar-clarifies-quest/#respond)
Some people would trash even the good name of the dead to get media attention on their agenda. In this case, it seems as though the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ lobbyists are trying to make more of a good friendship than what really was there. That is, questions about Cardinal Newman’s sɛҳuąƖity, that he was same sex attracted, are surfacing with the goal of derailing the process of beatification/canonization. London’s Daily Mail published an article questioning the facts (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1052229/Vatican-hits-claims-Britains-saint-Cardinal-Newman-closet-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.html) and the Catholic News Agency published this article (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13698). Father Kerr’s L’Osservatore Romano article follows; it was published today in the weekly English edition.
CARDINAL JOHN HENRY NEWMAN’S EXHUMATION OBJECTORS
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.
Professor Ian Ker
Oxford University, England
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
(http://communio.stblogs.org/JH%20Newman3-thumb-225x337.jpg) (http://communio.stblogs.org/JH%20Newman3.jpg)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 sua, 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”.
I am largely in agreement with you, Nadir, and Cera. But it cannot be denied that in the former process of beatification, these charges would have been the meat and drink of the advocatus diaboli. Had the charges been thoroughly presented, debated, and addressed in that process and had Newman emerged from the process with a clean escutcheon, the four of us and a great many others would, I believe, be able to look upon his elevation to the altar with much more ease of mind and spirit.*I guess what is happening here is certain posters doing the work of the Devil's Advocate. It is a necessary work but not our responsibilty. O for the good old days when we had the security of being able to trust the hierarchy of the Church to do their part.
As for Father Feeney's sneers, they would carry rather more weight had he not gotten several important matters dead wrong—for instance, the stupid and baseless claim that Browning was a Jєω or of Jєωιѕн blood. (As if only Jєωs can be outspokenly anti-Catholic!) Or that Newman's Jєωιѕн ancestry was unknown or hidden—and that matter, of course, is yet another one that would have had a prominent place in the AD's dossier.
Whether Newman is or isn't in heaven is something all of us will find out for certain when we severally and individually join him in the grave. In the meantime, even the most skeptical among us may pray either for him or conditionally to him—or both.
____________________
* Recall, too, that Thomas à Kempis was denied sainthood with rather less evidence of character defect than has been raised anent Newman.
* Recall, too, that Thomas à Kempis was denied sainthood with rather less evidence of character defect than has been raised anent Newman.Well, his cause still exists, it's just not moving forward. Some causes have taken a while. Joan of Arc' was only canonized in 1920 and her life overlapped with Thomas a Kempis. The cause for Queen Isabella of Spain only started in 1958.
Well, his cause still exists, it's just not moving forward. Some causes have taken a while. Joan of Arc' was only canonized in 1920 and her life overlapped with Thomas a Kempis. The cause for Queen Isabella of Spain only started in 1958.Did you ever hear that basis for The Imitation of Christ actually came from St. Anthony of Padua?
Thank you so much, Sean, for posting this. It is beautiful and very moving.
What a tender heart his was. A truly beautiful soul!
John Henry Newman was constantly praised for the clarity of his English prose and the limpid lucidity of his style. That he possesses these qualities, no one can deny. But his is the cold clarity of clear water in a fish bowl, in which one looks in vain for the fish.
The more you read Newman, the less you remember what he says. He is an author whom it is impossible to quote. What you recall, after you have finished reading him, is never what the clarity of his style was revealing, but some small, unwarranted queerness that it was almost concealing. You remember that Newman said that a chandelier “depends” from a ceiling; and if you look up “depends” in the dictionary, you will find that “hangs from” is exactly what it means. You remember that Newman felt entitled to mispronounce deliberately one English word to show his proprietorship over the language. He pronounced “soldier” as sol—dee—err. You remember that Newman was perpetually fussing about Reverend E. B. Pusey, who seems, in some refined way, to have gotten under his skin.
You remember Newman was shocked that Catholics were giving Protestants the grounds for declaring that “the honor of Our Lady is dearer to Catholics than the conversion of England,” as though anything else could be the childlike truth. You remember that Newman particularly disliked the Marian writings of St. Alfonso Liguori, a Doctor of the Universal Church, and said of these writings, “They are suitable for Italy, but they are not suitable for England.” You remember that, with regard to the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Newman insisted, in scholarly fashion, that “her case is essentially the same as St. John the Baptist, save for a difference of six months” — which is precisely the difference this dogma demands. You remember that, though Newman was in favor of Papal Infallibility, he was not in favor of its being infallibly defined by the Pope.
(from London is a Place, The Ravengate Press, Boston)
I guess what is happening here is certain posters doing the work of the Devil's Advocate. It is a necessary work but not our responsibilty. O for the good old days when we had the security of being able to trust the hierarchy of the Church to do their part.
It's a nasty business though when a priest is judged to be a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ on no evidence at all.
Oh yeah, thank you for the correction.Hi Sean,
St. Pius X merely defended an allegedly notorious fag against the charge of modernism.
http://www.newmanreader.org/canonization/popes/acta10mar08.html (http://www.newmanreader.org/canonization/popes/acta10mar08.html)
Hi Sean,Perhaps you are right; point well taken.
I read the link you provided and the only mentions of Blessed Cardinal Newman were positive. There is no support for the term "allegedly notorious fag."
I understand that you regard this offensive allegation to be false, but please stop repeating the unfounded disgusting accusation. Inattentive readers will wrongly assume that the link provides support for this calumny.
Great link, btw. Thanks!
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. And indeed, in the domain of England, it is common knowledge that Henry Newman pleaded the cause of the Catholic faith in his prolific literary output so effectively that his work was both highly beneficial to its citizens and greatly appreciated by Our Predecessors: and so he is held worthy of office whom Leo XIII, undoubtedly a shrewd judge of men and affairs, appointed Cardinal; indeed he was very highly regarded by him at every stage of his career, and deservedly so. Truly, there is something about such a large quantity of work and his long hours of labour lasting far into the night that seems foreign to the usual way of theologians: nothing can be found to bring any suspicion about his faith. You correctly state that it is entirely to be expected that where no new signs of heresy were apparent he has perhaps used an off-guard manner of speaking to some people in certain places, but that what the Modernists do is to falsely and deceitfully take those words out of the whole context of what he meant to say and twist them to suit their own meaning. 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: and also for having, to the best of your ability, brought your influence to bear among your fellow-countrymen, but particularly among the English people, so that 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 books without, to be sure, being addicted to their own prejudices, and let them not with wicked cunning conjure anything up from them or declare that their own opinions are confirmed in them; but instead 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: in the first place, to regard the Magisterium of the Church as sacred, to defend the doctrine handed down inviolately by the Fathers and, what is of highest importance to the safeguarding of Catholic truth, to follow and obey the Successor of St. Peter with the greatest faith. To you, therefore, Venerable Brother, and to your clergy and people, We give Our heartfelt thanks for having taken the trouble to help Us in Our reduced circuмstances by sending your communal gift of financial aid: and in order to gain for you all, but first and foremost for yourself, the gifts of God's goodness, and as a testimony of Our benevolence, We affectionately bestow Our Apostolic blessing.
Yes Father Feeney's The Point is essential reading.Thank you, Rum. The Newman fans here seem to think only his friendship with ASJ is the sticking point. They are missing his reluctant Catholicity - and if the rules for canonization were still orthodox, it is certainly to be wondered if he would manage all the necessary miracles. But the Deep State is in charge of the Church for now - their house, their rules … their saints.
Here's an excerpt about Newman, from Fr. Feeney's book London is a Place (1951):
https://fatherfeeney.wordpress.com/2009/08/22/the-point-october-1952/
On Newman Clubs:
https://fatherfeeney.wordpress.com/2009/08/22/the-point-october-1953/
"As they started off, the Newman Clubs selected John Henry Cardinal Newman as their patron for many reasons, one of which was their certainty that he would never embarrass them by getting canonized and turning into a patron-saint."
(https://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/Images%20101-200/107_NewmanHomo.jpg)Oh please. This is not "proof" of anything. In fact, this is the basis of the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activist's attack on Blessed Cardinal Newman. It is not surprising that anti-Catholic sodomite activists attempt to normalize their perversion by attacking a good Catholic anti-modernist Cardinal.
Oh, sila ay mga espirituwal na mahilig lamang?
Interesting article, but NOT written by Father Feeney; at the top it says he only edited it. In context:
On Newman Clubs:
https://fatherfeeney.wordpress.com/2009/08/22/the-point-october-1953/
"As they started off, the Newman Clubs selected John Henry Cardinal Newman as their patron for many reasons, one of which was their certainty that he would never embarrass them by getting canonized and turning into a patron-saint."
Against the homo theory: http://communio.stblogs.org/index.php/2008/09/newman-scholar-clarifies-quest/ (http://communio.stblogs.org/index.php/2008/09/newman-scholar-clarifies-quest/):cheers:
Newman scholar clarifies questions of Cardinal’s sɛҳuąƖity (http://communio.stblogs.org/index.php/2008/09/newman-scholar-clarifies-quest/)
Wednesday, 03 September 2008 14:58 0 Comments (http://communio.stblogs.org/index.php/2008/09/newman-scholar-clarifies-quest/#respond)
Some people would trash even the good name of the dead to get media attention on their agenda. In this case, it seems as though the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ lobbyists are trying to make more of a good friendship than what really was there. That is, questions about Cardinal Newman’s sɛҳuąƖity, that he was same sex attracted, are surfacing with the goal of derailing the process of beatification/canonization. London’s Daily Mail published an article questioning the facts (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1052229/Vatican-hits-claims-Britains-saint-Cardinal-Newman-closet-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.html) and the Catholic News Agency published this article (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13698). Father Kerr’s L’Osservatore Romano article follows; it was published today in the weekly English edition.
CARDINAL JOHN HENRY NEWMAN’S EXHUMATION OBJECTORS
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.
Professor Ian Ker
Oxford University, England
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
(http://communio.stblogs.org/JH%20Newman3-thumb-225x337.jpg) (http://communio.stblogs.org/JH%20Newman3.jpg)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 sua, 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”.
The Newman fans here … are missing his reluctant Catholicity. …
My biggest issue with him, really, is his apparent embarrassment regarding the dogma of infallibility and his persistent efforts to water it down and explain it away.In what way do you think he did that?
I have read most of Newman's works, and credit his "An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine" for saving me from modernism:
When I was in the Novus Ordo seminary, I distinctly recall being conflicted about whether I should accept the modernist defenses of V2, or reject them in favor of Tradition.
Providentially, I came across that book, and saw clearly that the principles of his Essay had been misappropriated by the modernists.
I would highly also reccomend the Present Position of Catholics in England, which is a profound study regarding the influence of prejudice and its impact upon religious assent. In that regard, it is relavent to the issue of invincible ignorance.
But my favorite is the Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent. There is a bit of nominalism in it (error), but his great principle in understanding how one comes to certitude in religious matters finally rescued my from my scruples (that, and Piper's writings on prudence), and allowed me to see that there was in fact a state of grave general spiritual necessity; that one ought not look for mathematical certitude in contingent matters where it is never to be found, and that the best one can do is assess the multiplicity of indications pointing in the direction of a conclusion such, that to deny the high probability of the conclusion would be unreasonable.
From that point (along with Piper), I have never suffered the scruple in any significant degree (even if the devil tries to fire them up from time to time).
That book is a must read, and the one I would recommend before any other by Newman (if you can handle his prose).
In fact I would say that if you have scruples relative to the course of action you ought to take in the present crisis, it is essential reading. Coupled with Piper on prudence, you will never be disturbed to any significant degree again by the gnawing question of, "What if I am wrong?"
Newman's converting because his mind and his conscience would not allow him to do otherwise is a badge of honor, not shame. You and others who are unable to see this lower yourselves, not the cardinal, in the estimation of serious Catholics.Sorry - the Cardinal not taking Our Lady anytime for every place, and objecting to Papal Infallibility being defined, is not a good indication of a Catholic spirit to serious Catholics, or anyone else.
Sorry - the Cardinal not taking Our Lady anytime for every place, and objecting to Papal Infallibility being defined, is not a good indication of a Catholic spirit to serious Catholics, or anyone else.Merry, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Once papal infalliblity was defined he humbly accepted it.
He humbly paid lip service too it, constantly trying to explain it away or minimize it. He was clearly embarrassed by this dogma ... since it would offend his Anglican separated brethren. He was a proto-ecuмenist.Just another Novus Ordo canonization, like John Paul II, John XXIII, Paul VI, Opus Dei Escriva…… , and compared to them, of course Newman is a saint.
He humbly paid lip service too it, constantly trying to explain it away or minimize it. He was clearly embarrassed by this dogma ... since it would offend his Anglican separated brethren. He was a proto-ecuмenist.
Faber and Newman - Relations between the two men and their respective oratories were strained almost from the start. Faber was an enthusiast for all things Roman: forty hours devotions, Corpus Christi processions, novenas to the Virgin Mary. Above all, though, Faber was a champion of Roman authority, declaring that “Rome must not be merely our Court of Appeal from a national episcopate. Rome must really govern, animate and inform things with its own spirit.” Some other Oxford Movement converts shared Faber’s ultramontanist views, notably Henry Manning and W.G. Ward, the lay editor of the Dublin Review. Newman, however, was put off by Faber’s flamboyant Romanism and feared that such practices and pronouncements would alienate many Anglicans. These theological differences contributed to Newman’s decision to have the two oratories juridically separated by Rome in 1855. The separation pained both men, but especially Faber. He revered Newman as his mentor and desperately wanted to reconcile. While Newman visited Faber shortly before his death, the two men were not able to fully resolve their differences.Again, this says nothing about the sanctity or otherwise of either man, and that is what we are talking about in this thread.
Whereas Newman properly delimits the scope of papal infallibility within its intended constraints, the sede would (and routinely does) splatter it everywhere, then in the usual bombastic Loudismouth fashion, excommunicate those who don’t share his liberalism as being suspect of not holding the faith (even those who are many times his better, such as Newman, Perrone, and Fessler, all of whom were likeminded and of high authority on this specific point, per below).
[the Church] has ever shown the utmost care to contract, as far as possible, the range of truths and the sense of propositions, of which she demands this absolute reception.
[because] so difficult a virtue is faith, even with the special grace of God, in proportion as the reason is exercised, so difficult is it to assent inwardly to propositions, verified to us neither by reason nor experience
He humbly paid lip service too it, constantly trying to explain it away or minimize it. He was clearly embarrassed by this dogma ... since it would offend his Anglican separated brethren. He was a proto-ecuмenist.
In the passage you cited, Newman opens with ...Well put!
So, according to Newman, the Church goes out of her way to limit "as far as possible" the truths which are taught infallibly.
Why [according to him]?
Because it's HARD for people to accept the truths of divine revelation when their natural reason cannot verify them. Nonsense. It's hard only for the Modernists who attempt to subject divine revelation to their natural reason. According to Newman, it's DIFFICULT to believe in the Holy Trinity? Says who? For someone who has the faith, it's utter simplicity. It's only difficult for those who lack the faith.
Once someone has supernatural faith, it is EASY to accept whatever the Church teaches with her authority. Hard to understand? Of course. Impossible really. But hard to give assent? Hogwash. Catholics with supernatural faith find assenting to these truths to be childsplay, doing so in fact with the simplicity of a child who believes what his parents tell him.
According to Newman, if the Church were to over-use this authority, then people would presumably lose the faith. What kinds of supernatural faith does Newman even believe in?
In any case, yes, indeed, you find an ally in Newman in your desperate attempt to limit the scope of infallibility as far as you possibly can. Basically, according to you (and Newman), the Church's doctrine could conceivably be 99.5% (the amount of truths, hypothetically, not defined infallibly) complete and utter hogwash, with only the dogma of the faith sure. Everything else is up in the air and subject to error. That is why you could blasphemously attribute such putrid doctrinal rot to the actual Catholic Magisterium.
Lady Nadir,
I'm sorry to say that the Jєω protestant "convert" known as Card. Newman was as they say: "As Queer as a Three Dollar bill":
Writings from his own hand:
Letter by Newman on the last encounter he had with Ambrose St. John
The Oratory: May 31, 1875.
My dear Blachford,
I cannot use many words, but I quite understand the kind affectionateness of your letter just come. I answer it first of the large collection of letters which keen sympathy with me and deep sorrow for their loss in Ambrose St. John have caused so many friends to write to me. I cannot wonder that, after he has been given me for so long a time as 32 years, he should be taken from me. Sometimes I have thought that, like my patron saint St. John, I am destined to survive all my friends.
From the first he loved me with an intensity of love, which was unaccountable. At Rome 28 years ago he was always so working for and relieving me of all trouble, that being young and Saxon-looking, the Romans called him my Angel Guardian. As far as this world was concerned I was his first and last. He has not intermitted this love for an hour up to his last breath. At the beginning of his illness he showed in various ways that he was thinking of and for me.
That illness which threatened permanent loss of reason, which, thank God, he has escaped, arose from his overwork in translating Fessler, which he did for me to back up my letter to the Duke of Norfolk. I had no suspicion of this overwork of course, but which reminds me that, at that time, startled at the great and unexpected success of my pamphlet, I said to him, "We shall have some great penance to balance this good fortune."
There was on April 28 a special High Mass at the Passionists two miles from this. He thought he ought to be there, and walked in a scorching sun to be there in time. He got a sort of stroke. He never was himself afterwards. A brain fever came on. After the crisis, the doctor said he was recovering he got better every day we all saw this.
On his last morning he parted with great impressiveness from an old friend, once one of our lay brothers, who had been with him through the night. The latter tells us that he had in former years watched, while with us, before the Blessed Sacrament, but he had never felt Our Lord so near him, as during that night. He says that his (Ambrose's) face was so beautiful; both William Neville and myself had noticed that at different times; and his eyes, when he looked straight at us, were brilliant as Jєωels.
It was the expression, which was so sweet, tender, and beseeching. When his friend left him in the morning, Ambrose smiled on him and kissed his forehead, as if he was taking leave of him. Mind, we all of us thought him getting better every day. When the doctor came, he said the improvement was far beyond his expectation. He said "From this time he knows all you say to him," though alas he could not speak. I have not time to go through that day, when we were so jubilant.
In the course of it, when he was sitting on the side of his bed, he got hold of me and threw his arm over my shoulder and brought me to him so closely, that I said in joke "He will give me a stiff neck." So, he held me for some minutes, I at length releasing myself from not understanding, as he did, why he so clung to me. Then he got hold of my hand and clasped it so tightly as really to frighten me, for he had done so once before when he was not himself. I had to get one of the others present to unlock his fingers, ah ! little thinking what he meant.
At 7 P.M. when I rose to go, and said "Good-bye, I shall find you much better to-morrow" he smiled on me with an expression which I could not and cannot understand. It was sweet and sad and perhaps perplexed, but I cannot interpret it. But it was our parting. W. N. says he called me back as I was leaving the room, but I do not recollect it.
About midnight I was awakened at the Oratory, with a loud rapping at the door, and the tidings that a great change had taken place in him. We hurried off at once, but he had died almost as soon as the messenger started. He had been placed or rather had placed himself with great deliberation and self-respect in his bed they had tucked him up, and William Neville was just going to give him some arrowroot when he rose upon his elbow, fell back and died.
I dare say Church and Copeland, and Lord Coleridge, will like to see this will you let them?
Ever yours affectionately,
John Henry Newman.
Letter Source (http://idlespeculations-terryprest.blogspot.com/2010/07/newman-and-st-john.html)
I’m not a fan of Newman, but Incredulous you had better have more proof than what you’ve been posting before publicly accusing someone of such a grave sin.
And some want to deny that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is simply epidemic with the Brits.
Card. Newman's affection for another younger man, Richard Froude.
I’m not a fan of Newman, but Incredulous you had better have more proof than what you’ve been posting before publicly accusing someone of such a grave sin.
Well, in the quote posted, Faber certainly implied that Newman had inclinations along those lines. Now, obviously there's no proof that he actually indulged in sinful ACTIVITY, but he does seem to show more affection towards certain men than is natural for a man. And if he resisted his impulses contrary to nature, that could actually be heroic on his part.Nicely put, I agree.
On the contrary, if he was indeed a more naturally emotional fellow, perhaps he filled the void of not being able to indulge in those emotional relationships with women by directing some emotion towards men ... without there necessarily being any sɛҳuąƖ component.
Nevertheless, all the spiritual writers consider strong natural affections toward particular individuals to be impediments to perfection and sanctification.
Rather pertinent in view of the manufactured controversy surrounding Cardinal Newman:
Note that at 8:04, Antonio asks for Bessario's hand, as he is about to receive the Jєω's knife.
They profess their love for eachother.
Not in foul sodomite fαɢɢօtry, but in the highest Platonic sense (Recall Bessario is, in the play, engaged to marry his beloved lady/fiance), according to elevated Christian charity, which is one of the primary sub-plots of the entire play.
Dr. White, in his conferences on the play, notes that once again, Jєωιѕн Hollywood contrived a different version of The Merchant of Venice (i.e., not the version posted above) where in fact the two are queer, which Dr. White rightly describes as either miserable or disgusting, and adding, "who can stand it!"
This kind of chaste, pure, Platonic charity has more or less passed from the modern world, and when examples of it are encountered by the modern, sullied mind, quite naturally, the basest rash suspicions become firm judgments of condemnation (and given the prevalence of the sodomite infestation in the modern world, that is almost understandable).
Nevertheless, I could not let Shakespeare's example pass without drawing attention to the equally and perfectly chaste and pure case of Cardinal Newman (whom also had a similar friendship).
I’m not a fan of Newman, but Incredulous you had better have more proof than what you’ve been posting before publicly accusing someone of such a grave sin.
2. The writer was at pains to ascertain the evidence for the alleged Jєωιѕн descent of the Newman family, and it proved to be a curious instance of how stories grow out of nothing. It is stated definitely in Dr. Barry's Cardinal Newman 'that its real descent was Hebrew.' Dr. Barry, in answer to my inquiries, referred me to the article on J. H. Newman in the Encyclopædia Britannica as his authority. And undoubtedly that article first broached the suggestion. I happened to know personally the writer in the Encyclopædia Britannica and communicated with him. In reply he pointed out that he had in his article never alleged Jєωιѕн descent as a fact, but only suggested its possibility. 'There is no evidence for it,' he added, 'except the nose and the name.' For those, then, who agree with the present writer that the nose was Roman rather than Jєωιѕн, the evidence remains simply that the name 'Newman' betokens Hebrew origin—a bold experiment in the higher criticism. I may add that in a more recent correspondence Dr. Barry agrees with me that no satisfactory evidence on the subject has been adduced. The Fourdriniers were a family of some interest. Their pedigree from 1658 made out by the late Dr. Lee, of All Saints', Lambeth, is given in the Appendix to Chapter II. facing p. 614. (http://www.newmanreader.org/biography/ward/volume1/chapter2.html#return2)
Sean,
Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice", with Sir Laurence Olivier is a great production.
It provides Catholics with a good understanding of the Jєω's base mentality... which would apply to Cardinal Newman too.
We could take this homo discussion into areas most of us don't want to go... such as Fr. Abrahamowicz.
But let me ask, what years did you spend at Winona ?
Were you there when Carlos Urrutigoity was there?
QVD,
I respect your opinion. Here's a closer look, from my perspective.
I'm of the steadfast opinion that a Cardinal, is still a high ecclesiastical official of the Roman Catholic Church.
Newman ranked just below Peter, Christ's vicar.
Therefore, that Cardinal Newman, who was also a Brit, a Jєω, and a protestant, would request and then be allowed to be buried with another man is outrageous!
I actually have firsthand experience with a homo priest pulling-off a similar burial stunt.
Homos are crazy my friend... they think such burial arrangements are romantic!
On the contrary, it is a grave scandal for the Church.
You are projecting something evil onto an innocent person.
Lady Nadir,
I'm sorry to say that the Jєω protestant "convert" known as Card. Newman was as they say: "As Queer as a Three Dollar bill":
Writings from his own hand:
Letter by Newman on the last encounter he had with Ambrose St. John
The Oratory: May 31, 1875.
My dear Blachford,
I cannot use many words, but I quite understand the kind affectionateness of your letter just come. I answer it first of the large collection of letters which keen sympathy with me and deep sorrow for their loss in Ambrose St. John have caused so many friends to write to me. I cannot wonder that, after he has been given me for so long a time as 32 years, he should be taken from me. Sometimes I have thought that, like my patron saint St. John, I am destined to survive all my friends.
From the first he loved me with an intensity of love, which was unaccountable. At Rome 28 years ago he was always so working for and relieving me of all trouble, that being young and Saxon-looking, the Romans called him my Angel Guardian. As far as this world was concerned I was his first and last. He has not intermitted this love for an hour up to his last breath. At the beginning of his illness he showed in various ways that he was thinking of and for me.
That illness which threatened permanent loss of reason, which, thank God, he has escaped, arose from his overwork in translating Fessler, which he did for me to back up my letter to the Duke of Norfolk. I had no suspicion of this overwork of course, but which reminds me that, at that time, startled at the great and unexpected success of my pamphlet, I said to him, "We shall have some great penance to balance this good fortune."
There was on April 28 a special High Mass at the Passionists two miles from this. He thought he ought to be there, and walked in a scorching sun to be there in time. He got a sort of stroke. He never was himself afterwards. A brain fever came on. After the crisis, the doctor said he was recovering he got better every day we all saw this.
On his last morning he parted with great impressiveness from an old friend, once one of our lay brothers, who had been with him through the night. The latter tells us that he had in former years watched, while with us, before the Blessed Sacrament, but he had never felt Our Lord so near him, as during that night. He says that his (Ambrose's) face was so beautiful; both William Neville and myself had noticed that at different times; and his eyes, when he looked straight at us, were brilliant as Jєωels.
It was the expression, which was so sweet, tender, and beseeching. When his friend left him in the morning, Ambrose smiled on him and kissed his forehead, as if he was taking leave of him. Mind, we all of us thought him getting better every day. When the doctor came, he said the improvement was far beyond his expectation. He said "From this time he knows all you say to him," though alas he could not speak. I have not time to go through that day, when we were so jubilant.
In the course of it, when he was sitting on the side of his bed, he got hold of me and threw his arm over my shoulder and brought me to him so closely, that I said in joke "He will give me a stiff neck." So, he held me for some minutes, I at length releasing myself from not understanding, as he did, why he so clung to me. Then he got hold of my hand and clasped it so tightly as really to frighten me, for he had done so once before when he was not himself. I had to get one of the others present to unlock his fingers, ah ! little thinking what he meant.
At 7 P.M. when I rose to go, and said "Good-bye, I shall find you much better to-morrow" he smiled on me with an expression which I could not and cannot understand. It was sweet and sad and perhaps perplexed, but I cannot interpret it. But it was our parting. W. N. says he called me back as I was leaving the room, but I do not recollect it.
About midnight I was awakened at the Oratory, with a loud rapping at the door, and the tidings that a great change had taken place in him. We hurried off at once, but he had died almost as soon as the messenger started. He had been placed or rather had placed himself with great deliberation and self-respect in his bed they had tucked him up, and William Neville was just going to give him some arrowroot when he rose upon his elbow, fell back and died.
I dare say Church and Copeland, and Lord Coleridge, will like to see this will you let them?
Ever yours affectionately,
John Henry Newman.
Letter Source (http://idlespeculations-terryprest.blogspot.com/2010/07/newman-and-st-john.html)
Though it's said that he never taught error, are there lies of omission in his work?Do you disagree with Our Lord? He did NOT warn us against Jєωs; He warned us against "those who say they are Jєωs and ARE NOT" (emphasis added.)
For example did he ever go on record teaching that the Jєωιѕн people, not just of Jesus' time, but for all time (excepting true conversion) are children of the devil? Did he ever say that his Jєωιѕн ancestors are in Hell?
Or did he steer clear of talking about Jєωs? Did he approve of the Jєωιѕн prime minister Disraeli? Any info. on things he said about Jєωs?
Dear Incred,:applause:
Thank you for posting that most moving account of St. Ambrose's death. Here we have a man in the last hours of his life, knowing full well that his death is immanent, and fully conscious and aware of his situation, but unable to speak his emotions. It is a very beautiful account, and I would wish to say that I will die such a beautiful death.
Here is the opening excerpt from the link you posted for the benefit of other posters and readers:
http://idlespeculations-terryprest.blogspot.com/2010/07/newman-and-st-john.html
Father Ray in Newman and St John and Jack Valero in The Guardian in an article entitled The sad demise of celibate love provide an antidote to the "chatter" about the deep but chaste friendship between Cardinal Newman and Father Ambrose St John.
No doubt the "chatter" will get louder as the Beatification of the Cardinal draws ever nearer.
For instance, a well-known gαy rights activist objected to the exhumation the remains of Cardinal Newman who was buried in the same grave as his close friend. He said: "The reburial has only one aim in mind: to cover up Newman's ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and to disavow his love for another man."
There seems to be a number of disparate groups who for their own purposes wish to prove that Cardinal Newman and Father St John were "a gαy couple"
There seems to be a number of disparate groups who for their own purposes wish to prove that Cardinal Newman and Father St John were "a gαy couple"
There are some who seem to wish to prove there was a gαy relationship so as to undermine the Catholic process of "Saint making"
Others simply see it as a way of demonstrating that Catholicism and its high officers were and are false and use it as another stick to beat the Church.
Lastly there are a few who see the beatification as being some kind of approval to gαy relationships even if sole and exclusive and founded on true love and fidelity. The members of the last "school" are frankly living in "cloud cuckoo land"
Do you disagree with Our Lord? He did NOT warn us against Jєωs; He warned us against "those who say they are Jєωs and ARE NOT" (emphasis added.)
What is the basis of your arrogant assumption that all "Jєωιѕн ancestors are in hell?" It is not based on the words of Jesus; not based on the Bible, not based on the teachings of the Catholic Church. It is simply a matter of your own personal psychopathology.
"Let us pray for the Jєωιѕн People, that they will return to the Lord their God, whom they have crucified". From Bl. John Henry Cardinal Newman (+1890).
--http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2010/09/cardinal-newman-and-Jєωs.html
Do you have a problem with anti-yid criticism, as suggested elsewhere: https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/eleison-comments-h0Ɩ0cαųstianity-%28no-603%29/15/I was clear: I have a problem with those who deny Christ by hating a group of people, and who deny Christ by disregarding His words.
Any dimwit could infer that I was referring to those who call themselves Jєωs.Jesus did not warn us against those who call themselves Jєωs.
Jesus did not warn us against those who call themselves Jєωs.All тαℓмυdic Jєωs are not true Jєωs, the тαℓмυd is satanic in nature and derives from the teachings of the pharisees. Modern day Jєωs are all members of the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan.
He warned us against "those who call themselves Jєωs and are ARE NOT."
Wow, hard to believe a debate of a Vatican II sect canonization could go for 10 pages on a traditionalist forum. They canonized John XXIII, Paul VI, JPII, Opus Dei Escriva and in a few years they'll canonize Bergoilio, they'll canonize anyone. Get real people.Hard to believe? Where else but in a traditional forum would you find such a 10 page discussion?
Quote from: Last Tradhican on Yesterday at 02:02:51 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/blessed-cardinal-john-henry-newman-to-be-canonized-oct-13/msg661571/#msg661571)No one would be discussing the canonization of Newman were it not that the Vatican II sect is going to canonize him, the Vatican II sect that canonizes Paul VI.QuoteWow, hard to believe a debate of a Vatican II sect canonization could go for 10 pages on a traditionalist forum. They canonized John XXIII, Paul VI, JPII, Opus Dei Escriva and in a few years they'll canonize Bergoilio, they'll canonize anyone. Get real people
Hard to believe? Where else but in a traditional forum would you find such a 10 page discussion?
Do take into account that the bolded personages were stars of Varican ll. Blessed John Henry Newman had no part in it.
Hard to believe? Where else but in a traditional forum would you find such a 10 page discussion?https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-approves-second-miracle-for-blessed-john-henry-newman-87278
Do take into account that the bolded personages were stars of Varican ll. Blessed John Henry Newman had no part in it.
No one would be discussing the canonization of Newman were it not that the Vatican II sect is going to canonize him, the Vatican II sect that canonizes Paul VI.
No one would be discussing the canonization of Newman were it not that the Vatican II sect is going to canonize him, the Vatican II sect that canonizes Paul VI.True. Discussing the canonization of anyone by the Vatican II sect is like discussing the canonization of anyone by any non-Catholic sect. However, most trads believe that the Vatican II church is the Catholic Church despite the fact that they dub it the "Conciliar Church".
Blessed Cardinal John Henry Newman to be canonized Oct. 13. In all humility, it is important for us to realize that although Bergoglio has canonized “saints” who leave much to be desired, we are guilty of pride as well as black-and-white thinking if we have a knee-jerk reaction against his canonization. Blessed Newman was a strong opponent of liberalism, as you can see here in an excerpt from Rorate Caeli -- one of his sermons opposing liberalism.
All тαℓмυdic Jєωs are not true Jєωs, the тαℓмυd is satanic in nature and derives from the teachings of the pharisees.I totally agree with the first statement.
Modern day Jєωs are all members of the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan.
the Vatican II sect is going to canonize him, the Vatican II sect that canonizes Paul VI.Your logic:
Cassini-Well said. Some people miss the subtleties of the enemy's strategies.
IF it is true that Newman was an errant heliocentrist, could that be coloring the rest of your evaluation of him?
For instance, why are you quoting modernist sources (inters.org) about what Cardinal Newman believed?
Obviously they, like all modernists, want to misappropriate his ideas for their own benefit (ie., canonizing dogmatic evolution to justify V2).
Why are you not content with Pope St. Pius's defense of him?
True. Discussing the canonization of anyone by the Vatican II sect is like discussing the canonization of anyone by any non-Catholic sect. However, most trads believe that the Vatican II church is the Catholic Church despite the fact that they dub it the "Conciliar Church".I think it is more that they pick and choose who they want to believe is a saint or a blessed among the beatified and canonized by the Vatican II sect. For instance, I doubt that there are any that believe that John XXIII, Paul VI, and JPII are saints (except the likes of Poche, who is not a trad anyways).
I think it is more that they pick and choose who they want to believe is a saint or a blessed among the beatified and canonized by the Vatican II sect. For instance, I doubt that there are any that believe that John XXIII, Paul VI, and JPII are saints (except the likes of Poche, who is not a trad anyways).Wait hold on, what? Really?
By the way, John Henry Newman was beatified, declared a Blessed, also by the Vatican II sect, in 2010, by B16. If I remember correctly, JPII canonized more "saints" than ALL of the popes before Vatican II PUT TOGETHER, and B-16 was not far behind JPII's numbers. With 60 years behind us now, we can see that their "canonizations" were intended to water down, cheapen and ridicule all previous canonizations.
Wait hold on, what? Really?Yes....
Wow, hard to believe a debate of a Vatican II sect canonization could go for 10 pages on a traditionalist forum. They canonized John XXIII, Paul VI, JPII, Opus Dei Escriva and in a few years they'll canonize Bergoilio, they'll canonize anyone. Get real people.
All I know is I wouldn't want to be before the Throne of Jesus on Judgment Day guilty of a false accusation against a holy prelate cardinal of Christ's Mystical Body.
You better have solid evidence before calling a cardinal a homo.
Cassini-Wasn't Cassini quoting, albeit from a modernist source, an essay straight from Cardinal Newman's pen?
IF it is true that Newman was an errant heliocentrist, could that be coloring the rest of your evaluation of him?
For instance, why are you quoting modernist sources (inters.org) about what Cardinal Newman believed?
Obviously they, like all modernists, want to misappropriate his ideas for their own benefit (ie., canonizing dogmatic evolution to justify V2).
Why are you not content with Pope St. Pius's defense of him?
Much has been said of late years of the dangerous tendency of geological speculations or researches. Well, what harm have they done to the Christian cause, others must say who are more qualified than I am to determine; but on one point, that is the point before us, I observe it is acting on the side of Christian belief. In answer to the supposed improbability of their being planets with rational inhabitants, considering that our globe has such, geology teaches us that, in fact, whatever our religion may accidentally teach us to hope or fear about other worlds, in this world at least, long ages past, we had either no inhabitants at all, or none but those rude and vast brutal forms, which could perform no intelligent homage and service to their Creator.
If she (Holy Mother 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 ....I
should welcome the authority which by its decision allowed me to turn my mind to subjects more congenial to it. On the other hand, it is legitimate authority alone which I have any warrant to recognize; as to the ipse dixit of individual divines, I have long essayed to divest myself of what spiritual writers call “human respect.”
Your logic:
The voters elected Obama, who was evil.
Therefore if voters elected Trump, he is also evil.
I'm not participating on this thread to determine if the conciliar church should canonize Newman, as I don't take any of their canonizations seriously. I'm only participating insofar as the discussion broaches whether or not Catholics should hold Newman in high esteem or view him as pernicious. Even if he wasn't a fag, did not have Jєωιѕн ancestry, there are still other red flags that go up about him. And it wouldn't shock me if he was a crypto-Jєω and a fag.Consider the source. The link is a TIA article. For those who don't know, TIA is not Catholic. Their leader Atila G., says on his own website that God is less important to him than Plinio:
This might be worth a read. I'll look over it later: https://archive.org/details/AnotherLookAtNewman/page/n1
Consider the source. The link is a TIA article. For those who don't know, TIA is not Catholic. Their leader Atila G., says on his own website that God is less important to him than Plinio:TIA members who post here on Cath Info are capable only of personal attacks, especially immature name-calling.
This link is written by Atila and posted on his website. An excerpt is below.
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/Internet_Files/F142_Defense_Eng.pdf (https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/Internet_Files/F142_Defense_Eng.pdf)
p. 36
Even the contemplation of God's plans in History . . did not bring me the broadness of panoramas and the sense of the divine that my relationship with Dr. Plinio provided. . .
. . .
"This relationship . . . is sacred to me. The great Moses with his burning bush on the top of Sinai does not make me jealous. For if he were there with God for 40 days, I have been with Dr. Plinio for 33 years. And in this relationship I see, perhaps, more of the divine presence than he before the sacred bush. And I guard the hope that I still may win the dispute with this Prophet when I shall pass from this exile to the Fatherland."
TIA members who post here on Cath Info are capable only of personal attacks, especially immature name-calling.
They can prove me wrong by actually replying to the facts posted here: the words of Atila himself on HIS OWN WEBSITE making clear that God is LESS IMPORTANT to him that his lord and master Plinio.
What's interesting about you Cera, is your conspicuous, intellectual inability to comment on the content of any TIA article?Answer the question regarding the heresy on TIA. Why would anyone trust any information from a heretical source?
Yet, you endorse pseudo-saints promoted by newChurch modernist popes?
Answer the question regarding the heresy on TIA. Why would anyone trust any information from a heretical source?Why would anyone trust any canonization from a heretical source.
Consider the source. The link is a TIA article. For those who don't know, TIA is not Catholic. Their leader Atila G., says on his own website that God is less important to him than Plinio:
This link is written by Atila and posted on his website. An excerpt is below.
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/Internet_Files/F142_Defense_Eng.pdf (https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/Internet_Files/F142_Defense_Eng.pdf)
p. 36
Even the contemplation of God's plans in History . . did not bring me the broadness of panoramas and the sense of the divine that my relationship with Dr. Plinio provided. . .
. . .
"This relationship . . . is sacred to me. The great Moses with his burning bush on the top of Sinai does not make me jealous. For if he were there with God for 40 days, I have been with Dr. Plinio for 33 years. And in this relationship I see, perhaps, more of the divine presence than he before the sacred bush. And I guard the hope that I still may win the dispute with this Prophet when I shall pass from this exile to the Fatherland."
This reminds me of the situation with St. Francis of Assisi, although I have no concerns about his canonization. There is, however, a popular misconception of his teaching and person that supports modernism. He was an orthodox and devout Catholic, but in the minds of most he is an animal-loving hippie.They also love to use St. Francis to promote corrupted ecuмenism. St. Francis went to convert the sultan not to diologue with him about worldy things.
I am afraid you are right about Blessed Cardinal John Henry Newman. However holy and orthodox he may have been, we can expect to see his writings, especially on development of doctrine, misused.
Although I'm very grateful to Ambrose St. John (and Cdl Newman in a small way) for translating the Raccolta into English for the first time in 1857, I find it quite arrogant of Cdl Newman to change the traditional Prayer Before the Crucifix (I believe by St Francis) which is beautiful in it's simplicity. I don't feel there was any need to modernize/alter it in any way. Sadly, Newman's updated version appeared in many missals and prayer books in the mid 1900's and itself has several versions.
Look down upon me, good and gentle Jesus,
While before Thy face I humbly kneel
And with burning soul, pray and beseech Thee,
To fix deep in my heart, Lively sentiments of faith, hope and charity,
True contrition for my sins And a firm purpose of ammendment.
While I contemplate with great love and tender pity,
Thy five most precious wounds, Pondering over them within me,
And calling to mind the words that David, Thy prophet, said of Thee , my Jesus,
"They have pierced My hands and feet, They have numbered all my bones
St. Francis
Behold, O good and sweetest Jesus,
I cast myself upon my knees in Thy sight,
and with the most fervent desire of my soul I pray and beseech Thee
to impress upon my heart lively sentiments of faith, hope and charity,
with true repentance for my sins and a most firm desire of amendment.
Whilst with deep affection and grief of soul I consider within myself and mentally contemplate
Thy five most precious wounds, having before my eyes that which David, the prophet,
long ago spoke concerning Thee,
“They have pierced My hands and My feet, they have numbered all My bones.
Cdl Newman
Well, to be fair -- and I'm no fan of Cardinal Newman overall, as I found him to be one of the first Ecuмenists (who like to water down Church teaching to make it more palatable to Anglicans ad other Protes) -- St. Francis did not write the first one either ... as they're both in English. So they're both translations of something. I kindof like Newman's translation better, as the first one appears to have been trying very hard to get most of the lines to rhyme ... and that kind of forced rhyming I personally find to be a bit of a distraction (although others migth like it). To make a final judgment we would probably have to find the original.Of course they're both in English, isn't that the language we're speaking?
Of course they're both in English, isn't that the language we're speaking?
The first one is taken from the 1857 Raccolta #33 on page 132. It's in Latin with the English translation beneath it indulgence by Pius VII April 10, A.D. 1821 (before Newman was even Catholic)
Years ago I saw it in an old prayer book attributed to St. Francis; I assumed is was of Assisi, could have been de Sales.
I don't see the attempt at rhyme, maybe you could check out the Latin in the Raccolta.
I guess younger people are more accepting of alterations to traditional things.
See: (https://isidore.co/calibre#panel=book_details&book_id=9175)Cardinal Newman: Trojan Horse in the Church (https://isidore.co/calibre#panel=book_details&book_id=9175) (2019) by Fr. Paul Kimball, SSPX
Re: Review of Fr. Robinson's Modernist Guide to Science Refuting Scripture (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/review-of-fr-robinson's-modernist-guide-to-science-refuting-scripture/msg850641/#msg850641)
« Reply #23 on: Yesterday at 12:27:08 PM »
Do you know who was King of evolution crap being the way God created. The Protestant who pretended to convert to Catholicism, became the Patron Saint of Evolution, and of Vatican II? None other than Henry Newman.
https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/a-patron-saint-of-evolution/ (https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/a-patron-saint-of-evolution/)
St. Pius X was a fan of Newman: https://www.newmanreader.org/canonization/popes/acta10mar08.html (https://www.newmanreader.org/canonization/popes/acta10mar08.html)
I think Newman's conversion was fake and that after Holy Pope Pius IX died, Newman bought his higher Church office.
Now some believe Newman may have come close to the line -- if not in actions, then in orientation.
"It's not unreasonable to think he might have been ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ," says the Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest and author of My Life with the Saints. "His letters and his comments on the death of one of his close friends are quite provocative."
Even doing things like packing his bags before he went away, making sure he was taking his medicine, making sure he kept dental appointments, that sort of thing. So it was almost like a wife but without the marital bed.
That friend was Ambrose St. John, a fellow convert and Catholic priest. Newman described St. John as "my earthly light." The two men were inseparable; they lived together for 32 years. According to John Cornwell, author of a forthcoming biography called Newman's Unquiet Grave, St. John helped Newman with his scholarship, translations and more.
When St. John died in 1875, Newman was devastated. "I have always thought no bereavement was equal to that of a husband's or a wife's," he wrote, "but I feel it difficult to believe that anyone's sorrow can be greater than mine."
Just before his own death, Newman made a strongly worded request -- not once but three times -- that he be buried in the same grave with his lifelong friend.
But Cornwell says if the two men had feelings, they didn't act on them.
"Having read all of those letters, all 32 volumes of them, I can't find any clear evidence of a sɛҳuąƖ physical relationship," he says.
Now some believe Newman may have come close to the line -- if not in actions, then in orientation.The slipperiness of Jesuit ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖist activist @JamesMartinSJ
"It's not unreasonable to think he might have been ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ," says the Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest and author of My Life with the Saints. "His letters and his comments on the death of one of his close friends are quite provocative."
There are some disturbing reports out there about their relationship.A ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ rag was the original source of the "disturbing reports" (in other words lies and innuendo). This homoangenda smear was picked up by TIA who then peddled it as if it were true.
A ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ rag was the original source of the "disturbing reports" (in other words lies and innuendo). This homoangenda smear was picked up by TIA who then peddled it as if it were true.
The story originated with a homo-activist.
http://www.realclearreligion.com/index_files/e5f8488c4feced4c94abce26acaaee2b-449.html (http://www.realclearreligion.com/index_files/e5f8488c4feced4c94abce26acaaee2b-449.html)