Author Topic: Newman states Catholic Dogmas come from "Intense Feelings" (Read 2516 times)

Incredulous · « **on:** August 08, 2019, 06:27:20 PM »

The American Catholic convert, Brownson, said Newman was trying to develop Protestantism into Catholicity and had invented a theory that was “essentially anti-Catholic and Protestant.”

Catholic Dogmas Come from ‘Intense Feelings’

Quote

Summary of Orestes Brownson’s review of Essay on Development of Doctrine by John Henry Newman [Brownson’s Quarterly Review, July, 1846] - Full text here

In 1846, Orestes Brownson wrote a stinging critique of John Henry Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. The famous American convert had been a Catholic for two years; his Anglican counterpart Newman had entered the Church one year earlier.

Orestes Brownson, a stauch defender of immutable doctrine and no salvation outside the Church

The Essay, the last of Newman’s Oxford University works, was written in February 1843 in his effort to resolve what he viewed as changes made through history to Catholic doctrine. In it, he affirmed his conviction that in its dogmas Catholic doctrine does develop as the Holy Spirit assists the Church to grasp the truth implicit in the apostolic development. Using doctrines on papal supremacy, the cult of the Blessed Virgin, Purgatory and the invocation of saints, he claimed they had developed from the tradition of the early Church and were authentic continuations of the “process of dogmatization” at work in the early councils.

He left the Essay incomplete, stopping in the middle of a chapter, apparently having justified the step he had resolved to take. He and lifelong companion Ambrose St. John entered the Church and departed for Rome to study for the Catholic priesthood. It should be noted that in Rome Newman’s views in the Essay were received with sharp suspicion.

Even across the ocean in our more liberal America, Newman’s idea of an evolution of dogma was seen in many quarters as a threat to orthodoxy. The Bishops of New York, Louisville, Cincinnati and Pittsburg expressed their disagreements with that notion of development, upholding theologian Bossuet’s position that variation and change were in themselves characteristics of Protestantism and of error. It was, in fact, Bishop John Fitzpatrick of New York who encouraged Brownson to make his critique of Newman’s Essay, which earned him the gratitude of many American Prelates.

Developing Protestantism into Catholicity

Brownson began his critique noting that the proper thing for Newman to do with his Essay was to bury it.
It was, he asserted, a great mistake to offer it to the public. Since now that Newman had converted and had eaten “the food of Angels,’” he should abandon his Protestant theory, which was both unnecessary and inadmissible. In Newman’s earnest effort “to develop Protestantism into Catholicity,” he had invented a theory that was “essentially anti-Catholic and Protestant.” (pp. 2-3)

Newman with his companion Ambrose St. John

Newman’s major mistake, Brownson sustained, was that he did not distinguish between Christian dogma – which does not evolve – and Church theology and discipline, which do change. Newman’s premise, however, is that there is a perpetual growth, or continued increase and expansion of Christian doctrine, gains made from the investigations of faith and attacks of heresy.

This theory shakes the foundation of the Faith, Brownson asserted. Newman’s statement that the Church “went forth in haste, her dough unleavened, her creed incomplete, her understanding of the faith imperfect, ignorant” is false (p. 6).What the Church teaches is that Revelation was given complete, and there was no development or evolution of the original deposit.

How was the Church directed to make her additions and changes? Again, Newman tailored another strange theory saying the Church worked out dogmatic truth from implicit feelings. For example, on the doctrine of Purgatory, she “had a vague yet intense feeling of the truth,” which was later “digested into formal propositions or definite articles”.

It is preposterous, Brownson accused, to base the deposit of the Faith on something as changeable as “intense feelings.” If this were the case, then today an article of faith can give rise to a new feeling, which later becomes opinion, and finally, in a later age yet, is imposed as dogmatic truth. Such a view, if followed out, “would suppress entirely the proper teaching authority of the Church, competent at any moment to declare infallible what is the precise truth revealed”.

Christianity as ‘an idea’

Brownson futher objected to Newman’s view that Christianity came into the world as an “idea” rather than an institution. Christianity, Newman says, “came into the world as an idea rather than an institution, and has had to wrap itself in clothing, and fit itself with armor of its own providing, and form the instruments and methods of its own prosperity and warfare” (p. 9). According to Newman, Christianity was thrown upon the great concourse of men, to be developed and embodied by the action of their minds, stimulated and directed by the human mind.

Such view, Bronson countered, implied that the mind formed the dogmas, making them a product of human effort as the mind gradually developed a clearer understanding of the idea and created forms to concretize the idea. In such case, not only the dogmas she imposed but also the moral precepts she taught, the institutions she established and the rites she prescribed would all supposedly be products of the human mind. Thus, they ultimately can be governed, modified enlarged or contracted by it at its pleasure (pp. 9-10).

Not so! Brownson objected. Christianity was born from an original Revelation, full and complete in itself, and not merely an idea that needed to be realized or actualized by the human mind through the ages.

Heresies at the service of the Church

Brownson was highly offended at Newman’s attitude that heresies had provided an essential service to the Church by enabling her to develop and fully understand the sacred deposit of faith. “He sees no peculiar sin in them,” Brownson charged, but rather considers that they “anticipate the Church” and help her “to bring out and insist upon some particular aspect of the truth before her hour has come, before she has reached it in the regular course of development” (p. 13).

Newman never renounced the theories in his Essay

He quoted Newman as praising Montanism as “a remarkable anticipation or presage of developments which soon began to show themselves in the Church.” Newman claimed that “the prophets of the Montanists prefigured the Church’s Doctors” and the heresiarch himself was the “anticipation of St. Francis.” The Novatian heresy anticipated the thinking of St. Benedict or St. Bruno (p. 13). In effect, Newman defended that orthodoxy is supposedly formed from the “raw material” supplied by the heretics.

Brownson sharply observed: “It is singular that it never occurred to Mr. Newman that possibly the heretical view which he seems to admire so much were simply corruptions of doctrines which the Church had taught before them, and that heresy is the corruption of orthodoxy, and not its raw material” (p. 14).

Brownson went on to critique Newman’s supposition that Revelation was first made exclusively through the written word, another Protestant notion he attempted to Catholicize. He also argued against the profoundly naturalistic vision of human and ecclesiastical history that characterize Newman’s Essay. Nor was Brownson impressed with Newman’s much-heralded seven criteria to prove the authenticity or falseness of developed doctrine. He ran through the lot, subjecting them to his own tests, finding them faulty and deficient (pp. 4-5).

Theories accepted as facts

Brownson’s critique of the Essay has received little attention from the Catholic public, especially in conservative and traditionalist circles usually so zealous in guarding orthodoxy. This is unfortunate, in my view, for several reasons.

First, Brownson criticism is masterly written and his logic irreproachable, clearly shows Newman’s positions that deviate from orthodox Catholicism. Anyone who reads his review – and it is well worth the effort – will also appreciate the politeness of Brownson, who repeatedly asserted that his criticism was based on Newman’s thesis, and not his person. Further, Brownson invited Newman to correct him should he be mistaken in his evaluation.

Benedict promotes Newman as a precursor of Progressivism

But Newman never responded to the challenge. He viewed this criticism as a personal attack, making surly comments to friends about the “half-converted Yankee” and “auto-didaktoi (self-appointed) lay theologian.” (1) The latter criticism is inconsistent since he always supported the liberal position of increasing the role of the lay theologian in the Church. But Newman also had a well-docuмented tendency to hold bitter grudges against anyone who criticized his works.

Second, Brownson foresaw the future danger should Newman’s theory become accepted in the Church. Unless his theory was renounced, Brownson affirmed, it would either ultimately lead Newman himself out of communion with the Church or, much worse, be wrongly absorbed into the Catholic Church (p. 1).

In fact, the latter happened. His “pioneer” work established the idea of the development of dogma as a principle later held by the Modernists. Taken up by the Progressivists, it was consecrated at Vatican II, invoked in both the Declaration of Religion Freedom and the Constitution on Revelation. (2)

Newman alleged he was simply showing that the Catholic Church of his time was in continuity with that of the Apostles and the Fathers. But Vatican II did what Brownson feared could happen – it used this ‘theory’ to justify new advances and actual shifts in doctrine, such as its teaching on religious freedom. Jesuit Avery Dulles singled out Newman as anticipating the thought of Karl Rahner “to the effect that every dogmatic proclamation is not only an end, but also a beginning.” (3)

Someone could object that this work was written when Newman was a Protestant, and, therefore, should be disregarded as irrelevant after Newman’s conversion to Catholicism. The objection would be pertinent if he had rejected its theories or buried it, as Brownson suggested. On the contrary, he offered the work to the public and continued to defend its thesis until the end of his life. Thus, the objection is invalid.

Most American Catholics have not read Newman’s suspect theological works, such as the Essay on Development of Doctrine. His fame and popularity rest on his letters and sermons on piety and religious devotion. Let those well-meaning Catholic take the time to read at least Brownson’s criticism of Newman’s Essay, and they may begin to question the orthodoxy of the “oracle from Littlemore.” They may also begin to wonder if the beatification of Newman, rightly called the Father of Vatican II by the progressivists themselves, has the underlying purpose of giving needed impetus to the Council at a time when dissatisfaction with it is significantly increasing.

Quote

1. Patrick Carey, Orestes A. Brownson: American Religious Weathervane, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2004, p. 176
2. Avery Dulles, John Henry Newman, London: Continuum, 2002, p. 154
3. Ibid., p. 102.

Augustinus21 · « **Reply #1 on:** August 09, 2019, 07:10:20 AM »

Brownson wasn’t a theologian and was in no place to judge Cardinal Newman’s work. The man had no theological training

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #2 on:** August 09, 2019, 08:22:53 AM »

Quote

Brownson wasn’t a theologian and was in no place to judge Cardinal Newman’s work. The man had no theological training

Brownson is America's most voluminous writer, and we have encountered no author who approaches him in learning. His Review reaches roughly 2,500,000 words. His Excellency, John "The Dagger" Hughes of New York City, who received Brownson into the Church, later remarked that Brownson, while yet a catechumen, knew more than himself. Before his death, Brownson's contemporary, John Cardinal Newman of England, once told a visiting priest in Rome that Brownson had no equal.

Kazimierz · « **Reply #3 on:** August 09, 2019, 09:02:34 AM »

The Idea of Christianity is also the title of a book written by Karl Rahner Essentially it is an attempt to marry certain strains of German Idealism with the historical Christ. Very subjective approach where you start with man and not God.

"Feeeeeelllings....whoa whoa whoa feelings, trying to forget my feelings...of the sound of music" ;D

rum · « **Reply #4 on:** August 09, 2019, 02:10:22 PM »

Brownson performed an excellent demolishing of Newman. I'll have to read him, as he's always been a blind spot.

Cera · « **Reply #5 on:** August 09, 2019, 03:01:11 PM »

Consider the source.

The OP is cut-and-paste from the anti-Catholic, anti-clerical, heretical cult called TIA, Tradition in Action. Their founder, Atila G. worshiped the founder of TFP. Plinio de O., lying at his feet and pledging his "sacred slavery" to him in a mockery of a dedication to Our Lady. They also prayed to Plinio in a mockery of the Ave Maria. The slaves also "went to confession" to layman Plinio.

A sketchy source like this should be identified. That it was not speaks volumes.

Cera · « **Reply #6 on:** August 09, 2019, 03:07:12 PM »

An search of
Cardinal Newman "intense feelings"
comes up with NOTHING other than the TIA cult links.

The TIA cult article in the OP gives neither support nor context to the two words they pretend to cite. Typical of TIA, just innuendo.

Augustinus21 · « **Reply #7 on:** August 09, 2019, 03:55:19 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 09, 2019, 08:22:53 AM

Brownson is America's most voluminous writer, and we have encountered no author who approaches him in learning. His Review reaches roughly 2,500,000 words. His Excellency, John "The Dagger" Hughes of New York City, who received Brownson into the Church, later remarked that Brownson, while yet a catechumen, knew more than himself. Before his death, Brownson's contemporary, John Cardinal Newman of England, once told a visiting priest in Rome that Brownson had no equal.

Length does not amount to quality. To claim that no other American author approaches Brownson in learning is laughable. Many Southern writers in the 19th century (Calhoun, Dabney, Thornwell, etc) were very learned men. If we’re limiting the discussion to Catholics, Fr. Michael Muller was a far better scholar than Brownson

Augustinus21 · « **Reply #8 on:** August 09, 2019, 04:22:40 PM »

From Brownson’s wiki page

“to writing articles dedicated to converting America to Catholicism.^[15] Brownson used his articles to strike out against his former friends in the Transcendental movement, whom, he wrote, would be damned unless they converted as well.^[10] He succeeded in persuading Sophia Ripley, wife of George Ripley, to convert, but few others. At the same time, he lost the respect of more of his correspondents. According to one scholar, after his conversion, Brownson's writing changed, and the work he published in Brownson's Quarterly Review expressed "liberal views [that] frequently got Brownson into trouble, sometimes with the Catholic hierarchy."^[16] His conversion prompted him to be overzealous in defense of the Catholic Church. His unruly enthusiasm resulted in letters from local Catholic journalists and even the bishop of his diocese requesting that he cease leveling such harsh criticisms.^[17]Brownson's stance had much in common with the Liberal Catholicism of Charles de Montalembert, with whom he corresponded, and he published articles in French liberal Catholic publications such as Le Correspondant, taking the side of the liberals against the conservative Catholics such as Louis Veuillot.^[18]^[19]
Brownson had also been writing many articles for the Paulist Fathers Catholic Worldpublication. Brownson now saw Catholicism as the only religion that could restrain the undisciplined American citizens and thus ensure the success of democracy.^[20] To him, the United States was to be a model to the world, and the ideal model was a Catholic America.^{[citation needed]} He repudiated his earlier Fourierist and Owenite ideas, now criticizing socialism and utopianism as vigorously as he had once promoted them. A staunch Douglas Democrat, Brownson, like Douglas, supported the Union in the cινιℓ ωαrand polemicized against the Confederacy and against Catholic clergy who endorsed secession. He avidly supported emancipation and even made several trips to Washington to discuss the importance and urgency of emancipation with President Lincoln. He encouraged all Americans, especially Catholics, to be patriots in the country’s time of turmoil.^[21]

In 1853, he wrote a series of articles that claimed that the Church was supreme over the State. These writings caused a controversy among Catholic immigrants and the entire Catholic community in general. This controversy caused bishops all over New England to begin condemning his writings. He became increasingly lonely as a result of his being shunned from Boston communities, so he moved the Review and his family to New York in 1855, where he revived his interest in Catholic political philosophy.^{[citation needed]}
In 1860, he announced that the Catholic Church must progress towards a welcoming intellectual environment. He argued forcefully and eloquently that "neither the friends nor the enemies of religion have anything to fear from adopting the great principle of civil and religious liberty, and asserting a free Church in a free State."^[22] Brownson noted with dismay how few European Catholics supported abolition, and applauded liberal Catholics like Montalembert for being "the only Catholics in Europe who sympathize with the loyal people of the Union."^[23] He posited that conscience must remain free to believe as it decides and religion regards the spiritual not the civil realm. The State should protect such a right and restrict itself to governance of the external realm. He thus adopted a new form of liberalism that remained with him until his death,^[24] although his enthusiasm for such a liberalism must be balanced by a near simultaneous and unambiguous repudiation of liberalism which he expressed in the resuscitated Quarterly Review in 1873.^[25] There he rejected the kind of liberalism that makes "this world and its interests supreme." In 1862, he was nominated for a Republican Congressional spot in third district of New Jersey but was met with failure that was blamed on his open Catholic views. ^[26]”

^{While he got some things right and took a brave stand in converting to the Faith, he was a supporter of Lincoln and went liberal after 1860. I don’t think a supporter of religious liberty should be anyone’s model of a Catholic scholar. Again, Fr. Michael Muller was a true American Catholic scholar.}

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #9 on:** August 09, 2019, 06:51:31 PM »

Why don't you read what Brownson wrote? Do you get all your info from an open-source Wikipedia?

Incredulous · « **Reply #10 on:** August 09, 2019, 07:30:05 PM »

August-tiny can't formulate straight rebuttals to the charges Orestes made.

He has to attack Brownson personally to discredit him.

I don't get it... must be a millennial cognition thing

Incredulous · « **Reply #11 on:** August 09, 2019, 09:38:56 PM »

Quote from: Kazimierz on August 09, 2019, 09:02:34 AM

The Idea of Christianity is also the title of a book written by Karl Rahner Essentially it is an attempt to marry certain strains of German Idealism with the historical Christ. Very subjective approach where you start with man and not God.

"Feeeeeelllings....whoa whoa whoa feelings, trying to forget my feelings...of the sound of music" ;D

I always thought it was Barry Manilow who sang the song... but not so.

BTW, Doesn't Barry Manilow look a little like Cardinal Newman ?

trad123 · « **Reply #12 on:** August 09, 2019, 10:06:01 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 09, 2019, 06:51:31 PM

Why don't you read what Brownson wrote? Do you get all your info from an open-source Wikipedia?

THIS.

I rank Orestes Brownson, Bishop Hay, and Fr. Michael Mueller together; top notch.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #13 on:** August 14, 2019, 06:30:04 PM »

Quote

An search of
Cardinal Newman "intense feelings"
comes up with NOTHING other than the TIA cult links.

The TIA cult article in the OP gives neither support nor context to the two words they pretend to cite. Typical of TIA, just innuendo.

My original post was deleted, so here it is again.
.
Cera,
This article by TIA is not made up, but the quote of "intense feeling" comes directly from Orestes Brownson's rebuttal of Newman's unorthodox views on doctrine. If you're interested in reading it, here is the link. You owe TIA an apology over your too-quick dismissal of the facts.
.
http://orestesbrownson.org/newmans-theory-of-christian-doctrine.html
.
.
" Thus," he (Cardinal Newman) says, " the Apostles would know without words all the high doctrines of theology, which controversialists after them have piously and charitably reduced to formula;, and developed through argument. Thus, St. Justin or St. Irenocus might be without any digested ideas of Purgatory or Original Sin, yet have an intense feeling which they had not defined or located, both of the fault of our first nature and the liabilities of our nature regenerate." — p. 44.
.
.
Here is part of Brownson's critique (it is only part, as the whole article is VERY long):
.
Unquestionably (+Newman) does not mean to assert that there is any thing in the developed doctrine not meant or promised by the doctrine as it was in the beginning, any more than there is that in the chicken which was not meant or promised by the egg ; but he does mean that the faith is developed by the spontaneous process carried on by the mind of the Church herself, under the influence of what he calls the sacramental principle, and which he misapprehends, and also by fierce and protracted controversies, and developed in reference to what it is as positive dogma, as well as in reference to what it is not, in its positive aspect, as well as in its negative aspect. And here is precisely his error. When the Fathers speak of attaining to a more clear understanding, to more explicit and distinct apprehensions of the faith, and to the consolidation of doctrine, it is always as it is opposed to or opposed by heresies. The new explications and definitions do not make it more clear and explicit in what it is as matter to be positively believed, but simply as the contradictory of the errors those new explications and definitions condemn.

Incredulous · « **Reply #14 on:** August 14, 2019, 07:39:22 PM »

And Newman's attack on Pope Pius IX's "Syllabus of Errors" is the final nail in his non-sainthood coffin.

Author Topic: Newman states Catholic Dogmas come from "Intense Feelings" (Read 2516 times)

Incredulous

Newman states Catholic Dogmas come from "Intense Feelings"

Augustinus21

Re: Newman states Catholic Dogmas come from "Intense Feelings"

Pax Vobis

Re: Newman states Catholic Dogmas come from "Intense Feelings"

Kazimierz

Re: Newman states Catholic Dogmas come from "Intense Feelings"

rum

Re: Newman states Catholic Dogmas come from "Intense Feelings"

Cera

Re: Newman states Catholic Dogmas come from "Intense Feelings"

Cera

Re: Newman states Catholic Dogmas come from "Intense Feelings"

Augustinus21

Re: Newman states Catholic Dogmas come from "Intense Feelings"

Augustinus21

Re: Newman states Catholic Dogmas come from "Intense Feelings"

Pax Vobis

Re: Newman states Catholic Dogmas come from "Intense Feelings"

Incredulous

Re: Newman states Catholic Dogmas come from "Intense Feelings"

Incredulous

Re: Newman states Catholic Dogmas come from "Intense Feelings"

trad123

Re: Newman states Catholic Dogmas come from "Intense Feelings"

Pax Vobis

Re: Newman states Catholic Dogmas come from "Intense Feelings"

Incredulous

Re: Newman states Catholic Dogmas come from "Intense Feelings"