Author Topic: Cardinal Newman "Father of Vatican II" (Read 805 times)

Incredulous · « **on:** August 03, 2019, 07:09:15 PM »

Pope Benedict had to honor Newman's promotion of "Developmental Doctrine" with newChurch sainthood.

February 10, 2010

Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman –
Father of Vatican II Link

Louie Verrecchio

With news of the Holy Father’s plan to beatify Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman later this year, I thought I’d share a necessarily abbreviated look at the life of one of Catholicism’s most famous converts — a man who has been called “the Father of Vatican II.”

Newman was born in 1801 into what has been described as an ordinary Church of England home — his father; a London Banker and Freemason, his mother; a descendent of French Protestants who had become famous engravers and paper makers in England.
Newman’s earliest formation in faith took place at his mother’s knee, and apart from a love for reading the Bible, he had little concretely formed religious convictions as a child.

At the age of fifteen while away at school, however, Newman experienced what he called a “conversion” that sprung in part from his reading. This marked the beginning of his search for a more doctrinally ordered faith, and he soon focused his energies on exploring an early Church creed on the Trinity and the Incarnation and its relationship with Sacred Scripture.

Now don’t get me wrong; Newman wasn’t on the Church’s doorstep at this point – heck, he wasn’t even on the parking lot! — but a seed had been planted nonetheless.
At the age of 21, Newman abandoned his plan to study law and decided to pursue a religious vocation. He was ordained an Anglican priest at the age of 23.

In his late twenties, Newman became involved in what was called the Oxford Movement which attempted to demonstrate that the Church of England — along with Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism – was one of the three branches that form the one true Church. His studies and his writings at this time were largely dedicated to portraying Anglicanism as a Via Media, or “middle way,” between what was considered the excesses of Rome on the one hand, and an unbridled Protestantism that admitted of heresy on the other.
Things began to fall apart for Newman and his convictions when he studied the Nestorian heresy which claimed that Jesus was born a mere man and only later became imbued with Divinity; a heresy condemned in the year 431 at the Council of Ephesus.
As his studies continued, Newman discovered that a very vocal opponent of Nestor, an Eastern Rite Catholic priest named Eutyches, had also erred by proposing an opposite extreme that claimed the human nature and the divine nature were at all times combined into one single nature in the person of Christ.

Then came the real eye opener in the saga; the case of the Monophysites who envisioned themselves as a “middle way” between Nestor and Eutyches. Theirs was the view that Christ has only one nature, but His humanity was simply absorbed by His divinity.
Newman discovered that both Eutyches and the Monophysites were rejected at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 when it definitively taught that the one person of Christ maintains two natures; one human and one divine. This was a doctrine that Newman had already accepted from his scrutiny of early Church doctrine on the Incarnation, and it was then that he began to see the necessity of an infallible authority in order to guide the development of doctrine along a sure path.
His misgivings about Anglicanism as a “middle way” represented but a small crack at this point in 1839, but it only grew from there, even as Newman continued to labor to serve the Movement.

In 1841, Newman — ever the historian and scholar — began work on translating the writings of St. Athanasius, at which time he encountered the history of the Arian heresy, and it was here that Newman’s Anglican convictions, already wavering from his encounter with Monophysitism, were dealt another serious blow.

Newman later said, “In the Arian history, I found the very same phenomenon which I had found with the Monophysites. I saw clearly that the pure Arians were the Protestants, the semi-Arians were the Anglicans, and Rome is now what it was then.”
The final blow came when the Church of England decided to, in Newman’s words, “admit maintainers of heresy to communion without formal renunciation of their errors… heresies that are repugnant to Scripture.”

Even without exploring the details of the controversy, who can read Newman’s words and fail to think of modern Anglicans who have witnessed the same phenomenon in their own day, finding themselves drawn to Rome which is the same today as it always has been — the very heart of the one true Church?

In 1843 — while still an Anglican priest — Newman retired to an ascetic life where he studied the ways in which doctrine develops authentically, and over the course of the next two years he wrote his famous “Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine” in which he defends of certain kinds of growth in doctrinal statements as a sign of vitality in the Church that is to be expected.
Right from the very outset of his work, Newman excludes the possibility of doctrinal reversals; insisting upon what he called “preservation of type” and “continuity of principles.” He wrote that later expressions of faith in the Catholicism are simply fuller expressions of the same truth that had been present in the Church from the very beginning.

Newman realized that as time goes on, the Church expresses doctrine in a way that clarifies earlier formulations, but it does not contradict them. This, incidentally, is precisely how we should view the teachings of Vatican II.

Prophetically, Newman said that those who think that Christianity can simply model itself after what is fashionable usually end up abandoning the supernatural claims of the Faith. How often we see this today in the musings of those who misunderstand what the Council meant by “the Church has always had the duty of scrutinizing the signs of the times” (GS 4).

Newman ultimately concluded that the test for determining what constitutes authentic development of doctrine — as well as what constitutes an authentic interpretation of the same — lies in its continuity with the past; a notion that Pope Benedict XVI has often repeated in urging “an hermeneutic of continuity and authentic reform” when interpreting the docuмents of Vatican II.

A number of Newman’s insights found greater expression in the conciliar decrees, some seven decades after his death.
Among them:

The Church as an organ of Divine Revelation
Conscience as the voice of God in the soul
The unity of faith and reason
The sensus fidei as an authentic organ of infallibility
How certain things that exist outside of the Church – religious, cultural, literary, artistic, etc. – can in some way, through the good within them, be considered modes of spiritual growth that serve as preparation for the fullness of the Gospel as it dwells within the Catholic Church

Newman, at great personal cost, made the journey home and was received into the Catholic Church in 1845 and he was ordained a priest in Rome one year later at the age of 45. At the age of 78, in recognition of his vast contribution to the Church as one of the preeminent theologians of the 19^th century, Pope Leo XIII made him a Cardinal.

Later this year, the invisible Father of Vatican II will be raised to the altar as Pope Benedict XVI declares him among the Blessed. May his influence on the Council continue to bear fruit in its reception, interpretation and implementation through his most valuable intercession.

John Henry Cardinal Newman, pray for us!

forlorn · « **Reply #1 on:** August 03, 2019, 07:19:10 PM »

There is nothing false or untrue about what Cardinal Newman says about doctrinal development. It is a real thing, and the fact that the term is misused to twist old dogmas into meaning different things than were intended is not Cdl. Newman's fault. For an example of authentic doctrinal development, take the Immaculate Conception. The Church has always taught this in some sense or another, but in the past it wasn't so clearly defined, and so there was room for debate. St. Thomas' teachings on the subject would be considered heretical these days, but not in his days when the understanding of it was less clear and definite. It was only in 1854 that the dogma was finally declared. That doesn't mean the teaching was at all new or contradictory to what the Church had taught before, but certainly it marks the Church coming to a more definite and authoritative conclusion on it, ending the confusion and debate over the issue.

rum · « **Reply #2 on:** August 03, 2019, 07:35:12 PM »

This might be worth a read. I'll look over it later: https://archive.org/details/AnotherLookAtNewman/page/n1

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #3 on:** August 03, 2019, 08:20:35 PM »

Per Wikipedia: “ ...................Aged 14, he read sceptical works by Thomas Paine, David Hume and perhaps Voltaire.^[21]
EvangelicalEdit
At the age of 15, during his last year at school, Newman was converted, an incident of which he wrote in his Apologia that it was "more certain than that I have hands or feet".^[22] Almost at the same time (March 1816) the bank Ramsbottom, Newman and Co. crashed, though it paid its creditors and his father left to manage a brewery.^[23]Mayers, who had himself undergone a conversion in 1814, lent Newman books from the English Calvinist tradition.^[19] It was in the autumn of 1816 that Newman "fell under the influence of a definite creed" and received into his intellect "impressions of dogma, which, through God's mercy, have never been effaced or obscured".^[24] He became an evangelical Calvinist and held the typical belief that the Pope was the antichristunder the influence of the writings of Thomas Newton,^[25] as well as his reading of Joseph Milner's History of the Church of Christ.^[16] Mayers is described as a moderate, Clapham Sect Calvinist,^[26] and Newman read William Law as well as William Beveridge in devotional literature.^[27] He also read The Force of Truth by Thomas Scott.^[28]
Although to the end of his life Newman looked back on his conversion to evangelical Christianity in 1816 as the saving of his soul.”.......

Incredulous · « **Reply #4 on:** August 03, 2019, 09:02:31 PM »

Quote from: rum on August 03, 2019, 07:35:12 PM

This might be worth a read. I'll look over it later: https://archive.org/details/AnotherLookAtNewman/page/n1

This was an excellent book review Rum,

It supports the concept of Newman's infiltration role as a "Founding Father of Vatican II".

I posted it on a new topic.

Cera · « **Reply #5 on:** August 05, 2019, 03:59:04 PM »

Quote from: rum on August 03, 2019, 07:35:12 PM

This might be worth a read. I'll look over it later: https://archive.org/details/AnotherLookAtNewman/page/n1

From the link you provided:

"So, when Tradition in Action recently asked me to read and comment on the e-book Another Look at John Henry Cardinal Newman by Richard Sartino, I was happy to comply."

So this is not an unbiased source, just one tentacle of the TIA machine: anti-clerical, anti Blessed Cardinal Newman, anti Bishop Mayer, anti Bishop Lefebvre , anti Bishop Travez, anti too many priests to mention.

Elevation of the laity (especially worship of Plinio) is one side of the coin. The other side is anti-clericalism, part of what Bishop Mayer called their "anti-Catholic" stance.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #6 on:** August 05, 2019, 05:52:11 PM »

LOL, this Cera has a one track mind, again, if TIA had written in favor of Newman, this Cera would be against this VatII sect counterfeit canonization. By the way Newman is not a Blessed either since that is also a VatII sect false beatification. Anyone that calls Newman a Blessed, might as well call John XXIII, Paul VI, and JPII saints.

cassini · « **Reply #7 on:** August 08, 2019, 06:04:50 AM »

Quote from: rum on August 03, 2019, 07:35:12 PM

This might be worth a read. I'll look over it later: https://archive.org/details/AnotherLookAtNewman/page/n1

Quote from above conclusion:

‘The real danger of Newman’s influence however, is now at last becoming apparent as numerous Modernist rally behind him as the prophet of their dream, the dream of the layman’s control of his godless secular religion.
Conservatives argue that Newman was decidedly anti-liberal and cite texts from his pre-Catholic life in support of their contention.’ P.35

Cera · « **Reply #8 on:** August 08, 2019, 02:49:23 PM »

In a sermon on the subject, the eminent 19th Cardinal John Henry Newman quoted a Pastoral Letter from the Bishops of Switzerland that received the approval of Blessed Pope Pius IX. The letter was on the subject of Papal Infallibility, and what a Pope may or not teach. The Swiss Bishops clearly stated:
Quote

Quote

"It in no way depends upon the caprice of the Pope, or upon his good pleasure, to make such and such a doctrine the object of a dogmatic definition. He is tied up and limited to the Divine revelation and to the truths which that revelation contains. He is tied up and limited by the creeds, already in existence, and by the preceding definitions of the Church. He is tied up and limited by the Divine law, and by the constitution of the Church . . ."

[Taken from a sermon by Cardinal Newman published in Lead Kindly Light, The Life of John Henry Newman, Michael Davies (Neumann Press, Long Prairie, 2001) p. 184.]

http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/catholic-tradition.htm

I see nothing to disagree with in regard to this statement.

Incredulous · « **Reply #9 on:** August 08, 2019, 03:16:11 PM »

Is Michael Davies, a true traditional Catholic scholar ?
Then why did he defend Card. Ratizger's Dominus Jesus encyclical

Below is a scholarly analysis on Mr. Davies' claims, with references.

Letter to London

Atila Sinke Guimarães
Published in The Remnant, June 31, 2001

Some months ago, Mr. Michael Davies made an attack upon The Remnant columnists who had criticized the docuмent Dominus Jesus and issued a challenge to engage in a “lively debate” on the topic. Since I was one of the collaborators of the newspaper who had written in this sense, I published a small note communicating to Mr. Davies that I would accept his invitation. He responded in an article (The Remnant May 31, 2001) that the debate would have to be further postponed. He explained to his readers the importance of the position he holds and his many commitments and affirmed that he would not have time to deal with the matter before August. I continue to await the promised polemic.

Despite his tight schedule, Mr. Davies nonetheless found time to criticize rather minutely my Bird’s Eye View column of March 31. It seems that he likes appetizers before the main course. In his critique, he made one insinuation and four attacks against me. I will respond to these here.

A Protestant attitude?

1. The insinuation. With regard to the authority of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Mr. Davies explained to readers that this Dicastery had published some “three dozen” docuмents since the Council, although he had only read “about a dozen.” I cannot refrain from smiling at seeing my opponent counting Vatican docuмents like one who counts eggs. In the dozen that Mr. Davies read, he found them all “totally orthodox.” And he commented: “It would be very alarming if anything coming from the CDF was not totally orthodox. If docuмents emanating from the CDF are to be subjected to the judgment of laymen, then we would be in the same position as Protestants.” Thus, his insinuation is that I would be taking the same arrogant position of the Protestants in criticizing Dominus Jesus.

On October 31, 1999, Cardinal Edward Cassidy and Lutheran bishop Christian Krause signed the sadly famous Accord of Augsburg, in which the Catholic doctrine of the Council of Trent was, at the least, put in the shadows in order to please the Protestants. The text of the accord was approved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, according to the declarations of Cassidy. [1] It was several Lutherans who stated that Ratzinger’s input in that text was absolutely crucial.[2] Now, according to Mr. Davies, if I would disagree with the Augsburg docuмent, as I did, I would be taking a Protestant position.

Having presented these facts, I make my first reply to Mr. Davies. According to Mr. Davies, when the CDF puts aside the prior teaching of the Magisterium to approve the text of an accord with Protestants and if someone disagrees with this, then this person would be under suspicion for taking a Protestant position because he is trying to avoid favoring Protestantism. If someone agrees with the CDF initiative, according to the position advised by Mr. Davies of blind obedience to everything emanating from this Congregation, he would be obliged to favor Protestantism in order not to take a Protestant position. A little incoherent, isn’t it? I would be grateful if Mr. Davies could explain how a well-intentioned lay Catholic may act when the official authority favors either Protestantism or other errors or heresies.

Until he can clarify the matter, I will continue to follow the evangelical counsel: “Beware of false prophets who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them” (Math. 7:15-16). Also, the teaching of St. Thomas: “When there is an imminent danger for the Faith, Prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects.” [3] I do not see any Protestant tendency in obeying these counsels if the criticism is made for love of the Catholic Church and with due respect shown for the high position of the Prelates. If the Prelates would have the courage to stand up against the present day errors, the laity would normally remain silent. Since the former are silent, the latter see themselves obliged to try to fill this lacuna provisionally.

Allow me to comment briefly on Mr. Davies’ affirmation that the CDF docuмents are “totally orthodox.” In my book In the Murky Waters of Vatican II, I published an appendix on The Catholic Church and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity. There I cite three docuмents of the CDF on this topic and compare them with former Catholic doctrine.[4]I show how they cross over the moral boundaries that consider ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity a vice against nature and seem to give rein to this depravity in the Church. I would like to know if Mr. Davies would consider those docuмents “totally orthodox.”

Are the Catholic and Jєωιѕн religions identical?

2. His first frontal attack concerns a phrase of Cardinal Ratzinger that I cited and commented upon in my column. This is the phrase: The Jєωιѕн faith “for us is not another religion, but the foundation of our own faith.” In his attack, Mr. Davies makes several minor charges as well:

Quote

A. he asks that I cite “the correct context” of the phrase – a light insinuation that I deceived my readers.
B. Further on, he comments: “If he [speaking of me] is suggesting that His Eminence believes that the Catholic and the Jєωιѕн religions are identical, I can only describe such a suggestion as ludicrous.”
C. Then he affirms that because the Jєωιѕн religion does not have Baptism, it cannot contain heresies, as I wrote in my column. Finally, he expresses his enthusiastic support of Ratzinger’s statement and tries to demonstrate its veracity.

For the sake of clarity, I will respond to each part separately.

A. The context. I took Ratzinger’s quote from a CNS dispatch published by the well-informed L.A. weekly The Tidings (January 5, 2001). It stated the following: “The experience of the h0Ɩ0cαųst horrors may have prompted a ‘new vision’ of Catholic reconciliation with Jєωs after centuries of anti-Judaism and ‘deplorable acts of violence,’ said Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in a front-page article in the Vatican’s newspaper of December 29. He said Catholic dialogue with Jєωs belonged to a unique category because the Jєωιѕн faith ‘for us is not another religion, but the foundation of our faith.’” The sentence I quote is the nucleus of the dispatch, the rest is ancillary. I have at hand the cited issue of the L’Osservatore Romano (daily Italian edition) and the resume, considering that it is a dispatch, is well done.

B. Ludicrous. Ratzinger’s affirmation is ambiguous because it permits several interpretations of what he really thinks about the similarity between Catholicism and Judaism. Nevertheless, two boundaries limit these interpretations.

First, he was not talking only about past relations with the Jєωs, as Mr. Davies took it. Second, he was not saying that the two faiths are identical. Between these two limits the sentence can be interpreted however one would like, since Ratzinger made no further clarification. I understand the phrase in this way: the Jєωιѕн faith for us Catholics is not a different religion. I think that the Cardinal was trying to emphasize the similarity of the Progressivist conception of the Church (to which he adheres) and present-day Judaism. This reality falls into a broader context. According to innumerable serious authors, to establish a pan-religion is one of the objectives of Masonry and Judaism. By various means, conciliar Progressivism has been trying to achieve a similar goal.

What I maintain is that this is the orientation being followed by Cardinal Ratzinger, the present CDF, and various Vatican Dicasteries – for example, the Pontifical Councils for the Unity of Christians, for Inter-Religious Dialogue and for Non-Believers. If some Prelate or notable layman would like to discuss this matter further publicly, I am at his disposition. Mr. Davies is certainly included in this invitation.

My opponent caustically qualifies anyone who could suggest that Judaism and the Catholic Church are identical as “ludicrous.” I have just showed that I do not think this. However, I know several who went further than I did in this matter. For example, the Archbishop of Paris, Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger, is a convert from Judaism. Speaking of his conversion, he affirmed: “The decision to become Christian did not present itself as a denial, but as the affirmation of an assumed Jєωιѕн identity.” [5] On another occasion, he said: “My nomination and my presence in Paris place in sharp evidence the part of Judaism that Christianity carries in itself. It is as if suddenly the crucifix had begun to carry the yellow star.” [6]

Here are two categorical statements of Lustiger defending an identity between the Catholic Church and present-day Judaism. How does Mr. Davies interpret these words of His Eminence the Cardinal Archbishop of Paris? Would they be ludicrous? Would the Cardinal be subject to criticism? If this is the case, why not Cardinal Ratzinger as well? Or perhaps the thesis of Lustiger should be accepted without discussion in order to avoid acting like the Protestants? In this case, couldn’t Ratzinger’s phrase also be interpreted in the same light as Lustiger’s statements? I leave the matter open for Mr. Davies to respond.

C. Heresies in Judaism. My adversary affirms that one cannot speak of heresies when criticizing the Jєωιѕн errors, since heresy can only be applied properly to one who has received Baptism. I respond: Mr. Davies is right, but he simplifies the matter since he does not consider the different ways the truth can be applied. He does not take into account some important historical facts:

First, the fact that Judaism is the source of almost all the heresies, according to the words of St. Pius V: “We know that this most perverse people [which follow the Judaic religion] has always been the cause and fomenter of almost all the heresies.” [7] Therefore, in this sense, one can speak properly of the heresies contained in Judaism.

Second, various members of Judaism who converted to the Holy Church and then later returned to the Jєωιѕн religious practices were guilty of “blasphemies that in themselves are considered heretical,” according to the words of Pope Gregory XIII. [8]

Third, it is a common practice of Judaism to infiltrate the Catholic Church with their partisans who ask to be baptized so that they can stimulate from within the creation of a creed similar to their religion. The 17th Council of Toledo (694) [9] and the 4th Ecuмenical Lateran Council (1215) [10] condemned respectively a conspiracy to install Judaism within the Catholic Church and the converted Jєωs who practice the rites of the Jєωιѕн religion. Such actions can also legitimately be considered heretical.

D. Davies’ defense of the Cardinal. Ratzinger’s phrase has two parts. As I noted above, he said that the Jєωιѕн faith “for us is not another religion, but the foundation of our faith.” The first part is the point of interest: that is, how does one explain that the Cardinal charged with guarding the orthodoxy of the Catholic Faith can affirm that Judaism “is not another religion,” that is to say, is not different in relation to Catholicism? Mr. Davies attempts to justify the second part of the phrase, which no one put in doubt. As for the first part, he does not address the problem.

Therefore, Mr. Davies missed the mark. What he justifies is the fact that Catholicism proceeded from the Old Testament. He does not explain how this can be applied to present-day Judaism in order to justify the first part of Ratzinger’s statement. This first part is quite strange since between the birth of the Church and our times, many events have taken place that have changed Jєωιѕн-Catholic relations. I cite only two: the Deicide and the anti-Christian conspiracy. Judaism fomented both events, as Church Tradition and the best anti-liberal and anti-modernist authors teach. Such authors to a certain degree are the fathers of the present day conservative and traditionalist movement.

Now, Mr. Davies’ emphasis on his adherence to the first part of the phrase seems to signify that he does not believe in the multi-century combat of Judaism against the Catholic Church. Hence, some questions arise: What is the true position of Mr. Davies in relation to the anti-Christian conspiracy? Does he believe that Judaism and Masonry have been plotting for ages to destroy Christendom and the Holy Church?

These are not academic questions. They are issues of great interest to Catholic conservatives and traditionalists. It is difficult to understand how Mr. Davies can assume positions of leadership in these movements when he seems to deny the presuppositions that all have. Perhaps he could clarify the matter.

A request to reveal other sources?

2. The second objection seems to be only a trick. He wants to know what edition of Dominus Jesus I use when I affirm that the “Church of Christ” includes Schismatics and Protestants. Does he doubt the truth of my critique? Or does he want me to reveal to him what docuмents I have for the debate that he is supposed to take up later? Thus, he could decide whether it would be better to drop the matter or carry on the polemic. I don’t know his intention. The docuмents and sources that he requests I will give in the response to his critique, not now.

Allow me to make a parallel remark. The tactic Mr. Davies employs is curious. Early in his article, he affirmed that he would not be able to comment on my critique of Dominus Jesus before August. However, in his first insinuation against me and in two of his four attacks, the theme is my opinion on Dominus Jesus. Why does he say one thing and do another?

Appropriate title for Schismatic Churches

3. His third objection refers to my habit of designating the so-called Orthodox Church as Schismatic Church. Mr. Davies does not deny it is schismatic, but he considers it “particularly reprehensible” to give it this name. In order to prove that the Schismatic Church should be called the Orthodox Church, Mr. Davies strives to show that it deserves the title of “church.”

Although I do not agree with some historical arguments that he presents, I think that the discussion does not apply to my case, because I do not deny that it deserves the title of church; what I deny is that it is orthodox. Thus his argumentation, even if it were historically objective, would not be conclusive. To be conclusive he should have proved that it deserves the title of orthodox. For the second time, he missed the mark. I think it would be sufficient to end my response to his objection here. However, in consideration for my readers, I will explain further.

He states: “It has not been the usage of the Holy See, as a matter of courtesy, to refer to the Orthodox as Schismatics for a century or more.” I realize that in diplomatic relations with the Schismatics the Holy See may not use this name, but can employ lighter terms such as “dissidents,” “those who are not in communion with the Catholic Church,” etc. Notwithstanding, when the Church turns to her children to teach the truth, the language can be different. In my case, I am just a layman and not a member of the Holy See, and I am not speaking to Schismatics, but to Catholics who are subject to the temptations of ecuмenism. Therefore, my obligation is to be truthful with these Catholics, not to be courteous to the Schismatics. I do not see anything “particularly reprehensible” in this conduct.

I follow the norms of the ordinary teaching of the Church that were in use before Vatican II. I learned these norms from religion classes and good catechisms. I am a Brazilian with 55 years of age, and I remember well many of the teachings in the Marist Brothers School where I studied from 1957 to 1962, that is to say, in the years that immediately preceded Vatican Council II.

Among such teachings were these, summarized in my own words: The norm of the Catholic Church in relation to the religious confessions that proceeded from the Eastern Schism is to call them Schismatics or one should say the “so-called Orthodox Church,” the “self-named Orthodox Church.” Or, when writing, one can use “Orthodox” Church, placing the word between quotations. But one should not call them Orthodox, because the name signifies the church that has the true faith. And only the Catholic Church has the true Faith. For this reason, the only true Orthodox Church is the Catholic Church.

The Catechism Explained, by Fr. Francis Spirago, one of the most accepted catechisms before Vatican II, says: “The followers of Michael Cerularius call themselves the Orthodox Greeks, while we call them Schismatic Greeks, in opposition to the United Greeks or Uniates, who preserved their allegiance to Rome.” [11]

The Christian Apologetic Course, by Fr. W. Devivier, one of the most eulogized books of Catholic formation, says this: “The Greek Church is a schismatic church, though its denial of Papal Infallibility constitutes it, since Vatican Council I, as heretical as well.” [12]

I heard these wise norms applied many times in Sunday sermons, in the Catholic media, and in private counsels. It seems absurd to suppose that these norms were applied without the approval of the Holy See. Thus the affirmation that the Church has not used the expression “for a century or more” does not correspond to reality. Only after Vatican II did these norms disappear in order to favor ecuмenism.

Therefore, Mr. Davies is exaggerating in his affirmation that the norms have not been in usage for a century or more. They stopped being applied around 40 years ago. His indignation at my obedience to traditional norms seems to reveal that he also sympathizes emotionally with the new norms of Vatican II.

No salvation outside the Church

4. His fourth objection is this: “I would like to ask Mr. Guimarães to state whether he accepts the doctrine of Baptism of Desire, or whether he agrees with the teaching of Father Feeney that there is ‘no salvation outside the Church.’ If the latter, much of his criticism of DI would be understandable.”

I am not a member of the St. Benedict Center and have no special link with this institution. I do not know their teaching about Baptism of desire. I have heard many negative rumors about this doctrine. However, I am not a man who takes rumors seriously or gets involved in intrigues. This type of action is generally employed by superficial women or pusillanimous men who are afraid to say directly what they think. Because of the natural aversion I have toward this behavior, and seeing that the St. Benedict Center is the target of such rumors, I have sympathy for it, without ever having set foot there or had the pleasure of a personal contact with its directors. Some time ago I read a book about the life of Fr. Feeney and found it edifying. I approved of his strong Marian devotion. I liked his dogged opposition to the nascent ecuмenism. I admired his fidelity to Catholic tradition.

Without having made special studies on the matter, my personal position with respect to Baptism of desire is, I believe, the same as that of Holy Church. Should it not be, I will willingly renounce it. Baptism of desire can exist as an exception to the rule. The rule is that in order to be saved it is necessary to be baptized sacramentally in the Catholic Church. To the measure that this exception is too readily assumed or transformed into the rule, a sophism is established. It was upon this sophism that the Progressivists based themselves to introduce the notion of belonging “anonymously” to the Catholic Church, which would make its circle much wider than her visible limits.

It surprises me that Mr. Davies attributes the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church to the teaching of Fr. Feeney. One would have to be very unknowledgeable in doctrine not to know that this axiom was always defended by the Holy Church and that whoever professes the Catholic Faith has the duty to accept it. Perhaps Mr. Davies was too impressed by the rumors and forgot the position of the Church in this respect.

To stir his memory, I suggest that among other things, he read the following docuмents that clearly state this dogma: 16th Council of Toledo, Symbolum, May 2, 693 (Denzinger-Schönmetzer 575), 4th Lateran Council, November 30, 1215 (DS 802), Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam, November 18, 1302 (DS 870), 16th Council of Constance, decree confirmed by Pope Martin V, February 22, 1418 (DS 1191), Council of Florence, Bull Cantate Domino, November 4, 1442 (DS 1351), Pius IX, Syllabus (DS 2917), Apostolic letter Iam vos omnes, September 13, 1868 (DS 2997-2999), Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis cognitum, June 29, 1896 (DS 3304), Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, June 29, 1943 (DS 3821-3822).

Having refuted the objections of Mr. Davies, I await his next attack. I sincerely hope that amid his many occupations he will find more time to think about what he will write.

Quote

1. According to a Zenit dispatch of June 11, 1999, during a press conference in Geneva, “Cardinal Cassidy explained that the common statement and its annex have been approved by …. the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, whose prefect is Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Late this May, John Paul II also approved the signing of the Declaration to be carried out jointly with the Lutheran World Federation.”
2. See John Allen Jr., “Ratzinger credited with saving Lutheran pact,” National Catholic Reporter, September 10, 1999; A. S. Guimarães, “The October Revolution,” The Remnant, November 15, 1999
3. Summa theologiae II, II, q. 33, a. 4.
4. (Metairie, LA: MAETA, 1997), pp. 370-8.
5. Jean-Marie Lustiger, interview with the Bulletin de L’Agence Télégraphique Juive, La Docuмentation Catholique, March 1, 1981, p. 239.
6. J.M. Lustiger, interview with the Tribune Juive, Le Monde, September 5, 1981.
7. St. Pius V, Bull Hebraeorum gens, February 26, 1569; Ludwig Pastor, Historia de los Papas, vol. 17, p. 306.
8. Bull Antiqua Judaeorum improbitas, June 1, 1581; F. Vernet, entry Juifs et Chrétiens, Dictionnaire Apologétique de la Foi Catholique, col. 1737.
9. René Aigrain, “L’Église franque sous les Mérovingiens,” Histoire de l’Église (Fliche-Martin), vol. 5, p. 259.
10. Canon 70, Conciliorum oecuмenicorum decreta (Herder: Freiburg im Bresgau, 1962), pp. 241-243.
11. Ninth Article of the Creed, 4, 5.
12. W. Devivier, Curso de Apologética Christã, São Paulo: Melhoramentos: 1925, p. 99.

Cera · « **Reply #10 on:** August 08, 2019, 04:38:21 PM »

Quote from: Incredulous on August 08, 2019, 03:16:11 PM

Is Michael Davies, a true traditional Catholic scholar ?

Incred, whether you like Michael Davies or not, the fact remains that Cardinal Newman gave a sermon on Papal infallibility in which he quoted the Bishops of Switzerland in support of infallibility. Do you disagree with what the bishops said (and indirectly, Cardinal Newman said) on infallibility?

"It in no way depends upon the caprice of the Pope, or upon his good pleasure, to make such and such a doctrine the object of a dogmatic definition. He is tied up and limited to the Divine revelation and to the truths which that revelation contains. He is tied up and limited by the creeds, already in existence, and by the preceding definitions of the Church. He is tied up and limited by the Divine law, and by the constitution of the Church . . ."

Author Topic: Cardinal Newman "Father of Vatican II" (Read 805 times)

Incredulous

Cardinal Newman "Father of Vatican II"

forlorn

Re: Cardinal Newman "Father of Vatican II"

rum

Re: Cardinal Newman "Father of Vatican II"

Viva Cristo Rey

Re: Cardinal Newman "Father of Vatican II"

Incredulous

Re: Cardinal Newman "Father of Vatican II"

Cera

Re: Cardinal Newman "Father of Vatican II"

Last Tradhican

Re: Cardinal Newman "Father of Vatican II"

cassini

Re: Cardinal Newman "Father of Vatican II"

Cera

Re: Cardinal Newman "Father of Vatican II"

Incredulous

Re: Cardinal Newman "Father of Vatican II"

Cera

Re: Cardinal Newman "Father of Vatican II"