Author Topic: TIA Strikes Again! (Read 1344 times)

Caminus · « **on:** February 15, 2010, 11:20:09 PM »

Read this: http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_129_Newman-Munich.html

The first one to spot TIA's egregious error wins a prize.

sedetrad · « **Reply #1 on:** February 16, 2010, 09:01:18 AM »

Was Newman not Catholic at the time?

Caminus · « **Reply #2 on:** February 16, 2010, 09:09:18 AM »

He was Catholic. But aside from their gross general mischaracterization of his words and their overall import and implication, there is a glaring particular error which radically changes his wording in one part of the quoted text. When you see it, their negligence will take your breath away.

Caminus · « **Reply #3 on:** February 16, 2010, 02:15:25 PM »

Here it is:

TIA said:

"Further, Newman issued a critique of Pius IX's Brief that concluded by describing the papal docuмent as an "intimidation to every religious man," and he declared that forced by it, he would temporarily cease writing on these issues. This is the first photocopy (1) reproduced below from The Life of Cardinal Newman (vol. 1, pp. 566-567)."

Here's the quoted text:

[img=http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/Images%20101-200/129_NewmanMunich06.jpg][/img]

Belloc · « **Reply #4 on:** February 16, 2010, 02:35:39 PM »

Maybe I am over worked nad eyes crossed looking at this screen, but when exactly did Newman supposedly write the letter? was it jjust before becoming Catholic, right after or sometime later?

also, we now take as Gospel the writer of the works cited?(1)

1 The Life of John Henry Newman Based on His Private Journals and Correspondence (London: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1912, 2 volumes). The author is Wilfrid Philip Ward(Belloc-as cited in TIA article and atributed to this writer)

Belloc · « **Reply #5 on:** February 16, 2010, 02:37:25 PM »

Looks like they have heaping articles at bottom to back up the "we hate Newman" brigade....sometie, will have eto go through and see when they were posted/written.wonder if coordinated attack or gradual.....

question-is there anyone TIA likes? also, does anyone again see that TIA is akin to schizophrenics doing drive by shootings?

Jamie · « **Reply #6 on:** February 16, 2010, 03:55:27 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Here it is:

TIA said:

"Further, Newman issued a critique of Pius IX's Brief that concluded by describing the papal docuмent as an "intimidation to every religious man," and he declared that forced by it, he would temporarily cease writing on these issues. This is the first photocopy (1) reproduced below from The Life of Cardinal Newman (vol. 1, pp. 566-567)."

Here's the quoted text:

[img=http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/Images%20101-200/129_NewmanMunich06.jpg][/img]

For those who haven't spotted it yet - Newman actually said "intimation" and TIA read it "intimidation". The actual quote of Newman is perfectly good and the correct approach - it shows submission to the Pope and that Newman is "not sure it will not prove to be the best way".

Caminus · « **Reply #7 on:** February 16, 2010, 04:27:53 PM »

That's it Jaime. It's reprehensible negligence as an entire commentary is built around this text and the Popes alleged "intimidation."

clare · « **Reply #8 on:** February 16, 2010, 04:39:24 PM »

Quote from: Jamie

For those who haven't spotted it yet - Newman actually said "intimation" and TIA read it "intimidation".

Incredible. Is anyone going to draw this error to TIA's attention?

Raoul76 · « **Reply #9 on:** February 16, 2010, 04:44:38 PM »

Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, Cardinal Newman:

Quote

"The Syllabus, then, is to be received with profound submission, as having been sent by the Pope's authority to the Bishops of the world."

Shows the correct approach, eh Jamie? Whoops! Too bad Newman continues speaking --

Quote

It certainly comes to them with his indirect extrinsic sanction; but intrinsically, and viewed in itself, it is nothing more than a digest of certain Errors made by an anonymous writer. There would be nothing on the face of it, to show that the Pope had ever seen it, page by page, unless the "Imprimatur" implied in the Cardinal's letter had been an evidence of this. It has no mark or seal put upon it which gives it a direct relation to the Pope. {278} Who is its author? Some select theologian or high official doubtless; can it be Cardinal Antonelli himself? No surely: anyhow it is not the Pope, and I do not see my way to accept it for what it is not. I do not speak as if I had any difficulty in recognizing and condemning the Errors which it catalogues, did the Pope himself bid me; but he has not as yet done so, and he cannot delegate his Magisterium to another. I wish with St. Jerome to 'speak with the Successor of the Fisherman and the Disciple of the Cross.' I assent to that which the Pope propounds in faith and morals, but it must be he speaking officially, personally, and immediately, and not any one else, who has a hold over me. The Syllabus is not an official act, because it is not signed, for instance, with "Datum Romæ, Pius P.P. IX.," or "sub annulo Piscatoris," or in some other way; it is not a personal, for he does not address his Venerabiles Fratres," or "Dilecto Filio," or speak as "Pius Episcopus;" it is not an immediate, for it comes to the Bishops only through the Cardinal Minister of State."

To sum up "I'm a big liberal and I don't like this Syllabus so I'm going to concoct a bunch of excuses to make it seem unofficial."

Yeah, he was real submissive. If this is submissive, I'd hate to see rebellious.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 16, 2010, 04:54:15 PM »

Caminus · « **Reply #11 on:** February 16, 2010, 04:58:26 PM »

Raoul, do you write for TIA? It's amazing how many little deviations, exaggerations, innuendos, minimizations and other subtle distortions and logical fallacies fill your posts.

SJB · « **Reply #12 on:** February 16, 2010, 05:06:24 PM »

Caminus · « **Reply #13 on:** February 16, 2010, 05:22:36 PM »

Quote from: clare

Quote from: Jamie
For those who haven't spotted it yet - Newman actually said "intimation" and TIA read it "intimidation".

Incredible. Is anyone going to draw this error to TIA's attention?

I've washed my hands of them, if you want to, let me know how they dance around this one.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #14 on:** February 16, 2010, 05:53:24 PM »

http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/10Jan/jan21rea.htm

I just found this article from Father Gabriel Lavery of CMRI, a priest that I am acquainted with, and who is now the regular priest at the chapel I used to attend. Here he is defending Cardinal Newman. The plot thickens.

Quote

"In this interview Fr. Feeney makes many false and certainly gratuitous accusations against the cardinal. He claimed that he was of Jєωιѕн descent (as if that made him a bad Catholic), and that his conversion from Anglicanism was only nostalgic. Shall we, together with TIA, trust the judgment of an excommunicated priest, or shall we follow the judgment of a sainted pontiff?"

I am not a Feeneyite, as goes the mantra, but this reference to Feeney as an "excommunicated priest" makes me cringe. Anyone who says that pretty much puts themselves in the corner of the heretical Abp. Cushing, not to mention Pius XII. But I already know CMRI LOVE Pius XII and NFP.

Maybe being Jєωιѕн wouldn't have necessarily made him a bad Catholic, but when you tie it together with his liberalism, it certainly suggests Marrano infiltration, once again.

The judgment of the sainted pontiff that Father Gabriel is talking about is Pius X's letter defending Newman. First of all, this is a letter, not Magisterial. Secondly, the letter is wrong, and is a lousy moment for Pius X. Thirdly, Pius X is probably not a saint because Pius XII probably lost the office.

For those saying that I have dared to question Pius X, well, Pius X dared to question Pius IX, and many others of high standing, because as it says in the Catholic Encyclopedia --

Quote

"For twenty years Newman lay under imputations at Rome, which misconstrued his teaching and his character. This, which has been called the ostracism of a saintly genius, undoubtedly was due to his former friends, Ward and Manning."

He was mistrusted for a long period of time by many, many good Catholics, so is he supposed to be restored to all favor because of a private letter of Pius X, who in this letter is proven wrong?

Quote

Incredible though it may appear, although it is not always realised, there are to be found those who are so puffed up with pride that it is enough to overwhelm the mind, and who are convinced that they are Catholics and pass themselves off as such, while in matters concerning the inner discipline of religion they prefer the authority of their own private teaching to the pre-eminent authority of the Magisterium of the Apostolic See. Not only do you fully demonstrate their obstinacy but you also show clearly their deceitfulness. For, if in the things he had written before his profession of the Catholic faith one can justly detect something which may have a kind of similarity with certain Modernist formulas, you are correct in saying that this is not relevant to his later works.

Is this some kind of forgery? Why would Pius X question those who questioned Newman as setting themselves in opposition to the Magisterium? What has Newman said that was Magisterial? It was Newman who questioned the Magisterium, openly denying the need to submit to the Syllabus of Errors, and that is why these "puffed-up" people are against him.

I can only guess that Pius X did not have all the information about Gibbons and was judging by his later books, which may indeed be perfectly orthodox.