For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty... that no flesh should glory in His presence.... —that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the LORD.”
1 Corinthians 1:26-31
Friday, April 29, 2011
Evanġeliku: Deep in Church History
Evanġeliku: Deep in Church History: "(Gospel e-Letter - May 2011) John Henry Newman wrote, ‘To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.’ Does this often quoted stat..."
Mizzi: By the time of his death, Newman believed the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope. However papal infallibility was a mere theological opinion at the time of his conversion to Catholicism.[Me: nope]A popular Catholic catechism at that time asked, ‘Must not Catholics believe the pope in himself to be infallible?’ The catechism answered, ‘This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of Catholic faith.’ (Keenan's Controversial Catechism, 1851). [Me: the key words that make it "no article of the Catholic faith" are "in himself"]
Me: In other words, that catechism is correcting the "Protestant invention" that papal infallibility extends to the pope personally.
Mizzi: A few years later, by 1870, the ‘Protestant invention’ was declared dogma by the First Vatican Council.
Me: No, the Protestant invention was not declared dogma.
Is the original book by Keenan visible online (the 1851 edition)so that the quote may be read in fuller context? All I can seem to find are more recent editions.
The pope "in himself" is not infallible. He by divine assistance is prevented from teaching a fallible dogma. The pope, when exercising his office as the Vicar of Christ, speaking with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, may proclaim dogma. It is never really the pope alone or "in himself" that is infallible.
Anonymous, I found 'A Doctrinal Catechism' by Keenan here: http://biblelight.net/keenan.htm
It's not the same book, but it might shed some light on the subject. I did a search of the word 'infallible' in the document and found some passages about the infallibility of the Pope.
Here's 'Controversial Catechism' on Google books; probably not complete, but it may be an early version. http://books.google.com/books?id=LuMCAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Keenan%27s+Controversial+Catechism&hl=en&ei=aQ67Tc3bN4-Wtwe2qM20BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false
I think Dr. Mizzi's point was that it isn't true that 'to be deep in history is to cease to be protestant' and that Cardinal Newman himself later admitted that. Newman didn't stay true to his own understanding. He chose to ignore the inconsistencies and remain Catholic.
"I think Dr. Mizzi's point was that it isn't true that 'to be deep in history is to cease to be protestant'"
Yes, of course that is one of Mizzi's points. Hardly surprising. However, there is no evidence that Newman later denied the deep in history statement. Mizzi would like to interpret Newman to say that he did deny the deep in history statement but the evidence he uses is unconvincing. It was in great part Newman's study of history that led him to the Church and kept him in the Church. The quote he uses from "The Month" is just not enough without being able to read that entire referenced article. My suspicion is that he no more has read that article than he has read the original 1851 catechism he mentions but has just passed on something he has read somewhere else, perhaps another blog. Perhaps he should provide links that are available.
what is claimed for the pope is infallibility merely, not impeccability or inspiration (see above under I). (from John's link above)
Oh dear, what's 'impeccability'?
Oh here's something from section I: "that it does not require holiness of life, much less imply impeccability in its organs; sinful and wicked men may be God's agents in defining infallibly;"
I don't think I agree with that. The Old Testament prophets of God that wrote scripture were kept from speaking and writing error, but none of them were considered wicked men after they were called as prophets, I think. Some false prophets are mentioned in Scripture, but the prophets who wrote Scripture were not wicked. The Apostles were all Godly men, though not perfect. They didn't live wicked lives.
I suppose it's possible that God could use someone wicked, but why should we trust him if he doesn't even attempt to live in obedience?
The problem is that, right off the bat, Mizzi misrepresents the Catholic teaching regarding papal infallibly, and then that just undercuts his credibility.
I don't know about the technical designation of "prophet" but there are certainly many examples of people who did wicked things, and God used them in amazing ways, such as King David. Of course any personal sin of popes is a huge detriment to the witness of the Church. But it does not invalidate the chair of Peter, any more than the personal sins of a writer of any of the books of scripture invalidate the inspiration and inerrancy of what he wrote. The Holy Spirit protects the Church from error in doctrinal matters, and this belief is derived from the "gates of hell will not prevail against it" promise of Jesus that we have discussed before. We know that Protestants and Catholics disagree about His meaning there.
I wish Dr. Mizzi had told us what he thinks Newman's statement means.
Are we now surprised that Newman wasn't infallible? He changed his mind. Thank God for the ability to change one's mind. The Church is Teacher and Newman got schooled.
In my experience, papal infallibility is one of those doctrines that is caricatured by those who reject it. That seems to be what the old catechism has in mind.
Here is the document that Dr. Mizzi was quoting from [‘Nothing would be better than an Historical Review for Roman Catholics – but who would bear it? Unless one doctored all one’s facts, one would be thought a bad Catholic’ (The Month, Jan. 1903, p.3).]
The article above was titled 'Newman--Historian or Apologist?' and is basically saying that Newman used history to prove what he thought was important rather than writing about history to show what actually happened. It's significant if he thought 'one would have to doctor the facts' to be considered a good Catholic. That means, obviously, that he believed the Catholic church didn't stand upon the true facts of history.
'Newman--Historian or Apologist' also brings out Newman's theory of the development of doctrine which seems to be in response to his understanding that, contrary to Church teaching, doctrines had changed and been added over time.
The article also states about Newman (p. 6-7): "Citing the progress of the Arian heresy he made the point that it was the ordinary faithful who then preserved orthodox tradition while the bishops often tolerated Arianism." He recognized that Apostolic succession did not preserve the Church. Adherence to the truth by the faithful, by the guidance of the Spirit and the Word, is what preserves it.
Jennie wrote: "it was the ordinary faithful who then preserved orthodox tradition while the bishops often tolerated Arianism."
Sometimes God's plan comes down to one man, e.g., Jesus.
Athanasius, deacon and later bishop of Alexandra, was that one man during the Arian Controversy.
My opinion is that this is just how history is remembered, for dramatic effect: Athanasius contra mundum, etc.
We have no way of knowing what the ordinary faithful thought - is there a 4th cent. Samuel Pepys? - and I suspect ordinary people believed as their bishop taught them.
I do remember reading in Davis - but I can't find the quote - that, before Nicaea, ordinary people debated christology in the market place like we might debate politics (or not) today. Constantine's citizens were intensely interested in the issues but it was an intellectual exercise with little personal application. Everyone rooted for their favorite faction.
I'm sure I've recommended Davis's book before. He goes into great detail, citing positions of various bishops and their cities, before and after Nicaea I, before and after Constantinople I.
Thanks, Moonshadow, for remembering Athanasius contra mundum.
Jennie and I have already had this discussion about Arianism, and how the bishops as individuals are not the magisterium, and how the Church definitively decided the question then and still does so today.
If "the people" were always the ones who preserve the "truth", then the Church would approve artificial birth control, since the majority of Catholics apparently agree with it. Many thought Pope Paul VI would do just that, but instead he produced Humanae Vitae.
the bishops as individuals are not the magisterium, and how the Church definitively decided the question then and still does so today.
If "the people" were always the ones who preserve the "truth", then the Church would approve artificial birth control, since the majority of Catholics apparently agree with it.
We're getting off the point, but that was my fault for bringing up a side issue from the 'Month' article about Newman.
I wasn't saying that 'the people' are always the ones who preserve truth, but that Newman recognized in that instance that the people had followed the truth, while most of the bishops had not. Athanasius of course was an exception, and was used by God as a faithful saint to turn things around.
You said 'the Church decided the question', and you are right that the bishops did decide the question finally. However, the bishops are not 'the Church'. The believers as a body are 'the church'. And God always preserves a remnant of those who remain faithful, and often calls a man, like Athanasius, (as Teresa brought out) to lead the people and challenge those who are wrong.
Does anyone have anything to say about Newman's use of history, and his ability to ignore facts in order to support his cause? Shouldn't Christianity always stand upon Truth, in history and in Scripture?
Jennie, you treated my comment fairly, thanks. Absolutely right that when I say "the Church" in this context, I am speaking of the Magisterium. It's kind of like when you say "The Word of God" and I know you mean the Bible, whereas I would say the Word of God is much more than that, and you'd agree, I think.
Sorry for the off-topic-ness, I really didn't get further than the initial inaccurate section by Dr. Mizzi that I reacted to in my first comment.
It's kind of like when you say "The Word of God" and I know you mean the Bible, whereas I would say the Word of God is much more than that, and you'd agree, I think.
Whenever I say 'the Word of God' it's with the understanding that Christ Himself and His written and spoken word cannot be separated, so I would agree. I usually capitalize 'Word' when I mean Christ as a person.
Elizabeth said it very well. I can be happy that justice has been served, and I can be very grateful to the men and women that served it for our country, but I can't exult in Osama Bin Laden's death.
Scripture does say, as Turretinfan posted: When it goeth well with the righteous, the city rejoiceth: and when the wicked perish, there is shouting. (Proverbs 11:10)
The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked. (Psalm 58:10)
However, I think it is rejoicing that evil has been vanquished, not exulting in the personal suffering and death of a human being.
Jennie wrote: Does anyone have anything to say about Newman's use of history, and his ability to ignore facts in order to support his cause?
I won't accuse Newman of being dishonest - that's your point, not mine.
My point in mentioning later history writers like Davis is that, as good a historian as Newman's contemporaries like Lord Acton thought him to be, research methods have advanced since their time (and certainly since the time of the Reformation) and so there's a fuller picture today of what went on "way back when."
It doesn't make much sense to me for Dr. Mizzi to quote two contemporaries who compliment (not necessarily complement, but maybe that as well) one another when the discipline (or science) has moved on since.
We think the writing of history ought to be objective but, as much as this is achieved, it's a recent approach.
Teresa, you have a point about the discipline of history. And I don't know if Newman was being dishonest, whether deliberately or not. I don't think he was being deliberately dishonest, but he may have wanted to believe something so much that he couldn't or wouldn't look at what contradicted it. But I have gotten the impression that Catholics in general may be willing to ignore facts, or not believe them even against the evidence, if the facts contradict the Church's teachings. Is that fair?
If I asked you to give an example of a "fact" that contradicts Church teaching, you would probably come up with something that I don't think is a fact. EVERYONE thinks that other folks ignore facts. That's the basis of disagreement in general, right?
But you can give a "fact" example, and we can try to see what happens :)
Newman writes: "Unless one doctored all one’s facts" (emphasis mine)
Which historic facts need doctoring for Catholicism to be true? The virgin birth, the crucifixion, the resurrection, the ascension? None of these need doctoring. Newman exaggerates.
But he has some facts in mind. Which ones?
I don't know and Dr. Mizzi doesn't tell us. Let's guess at some: did St. Dominic give us the Rosary? Did Moses write the entire Pentateuch? I'm short on time but you get the idea. Maybe as Christine says these aren't important matters.
From what Dr. Mizzi posted/linked to, I get the impression that Newman left the Church of England because Anglicanism was becoming too liberal. Newman turned to the Roman Church because it was not liberal but I think he was surprised at just how conservative it was!
I think we can make a substitution in that popular Newman quotation: "To be deep in history is to cease to be a liberal." I think "liberal" and "Protestant" were synonymous in his mind, certainly true for his time, before the rise of Fundamentalism in the early 20th century.
But you can give a "fact" example, and we can try to see what happens :)
Which historic facts need doctoring for Catholicism to be true?
Christine and Teresa, the first two things which come to mind, and which we've discussed here before, are: the Church's claims for the Papacy, and the Church's claims for Mary 'the Mother of God'. These are probably the most contested areas between protestants and Catholics. Both of these areas don't stand up historically according to what the Church teaches about them.
Jennie, it throws me off when you post as your daughter because I think it's another "voice" in the conversation.
Alright, here's a criticism of such doctrines as those in The English review, putting words in the mouth of the Church of Rome:
"'Our doctrine was, beyond doubt, taught by Jesus Christ to his Apostles, and from them has been handed down, without the least addition or innovation, to the present day; therefore it is the only true faith. - We deny this positively. Our doctrine was only taught in its outline to the Apostles. There were great defects in the original revelation, and the human mind has made large additions to the original stock of doctrines in the course of ages, which the Church has placed amongst her articles of faith.'"
The "Review" (an Anglican periodical of the previous century?) called Newman a "Developmentist" who says (in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine) that beliefs like the Trinity weren't formally acknowledged until the fourth century.
So, maybe the Trinity is the type of fact that Newman felt would scandalize the Faithful had they known it came about so late.
But the point of "The English review" is that the faith was "once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3) "in those sacred books which all Christendom from the beginning acknowledged as the divinely-inspired record of their faith" (another contested point in our modern day).
How honest can "The English review" afford to be on that last point - about the NT being acknowledged from the beginning as the divinely-inspired record - and still maintain their argument?
Honest history includes the NT in the "development of doctrine."
Yes to all that Moonshadow said, and I consider it to be a FACT that the same body that determined the NT canon at the same time had the papacy and Mary as "the mother of God" both established. Could they be so right on the canon, and so wrong on the others? That doesn't make historical sense or honesty. But we've already had this same discussion. I appreciate how Moonshadow has new evidence to share. It seems simple to me that we know when the determination of the canon was made, and we know from the writings of the fathers what other things were believed at that same time.
that beliefs like the Trinity weren't formally acknowledged until the fourth century.
Teresa, I believe the Jews, including those who became the first Christians, understood the concept of God as three persons. http://www.layevangelism.com/qreference/chapter10e.htm If so, then it doesn't matter whether it was 'formally acknowledged by the fourth century church. The first church understood it.
Honest history includes the NT in the "development of doctrine."
Again, just like the Trinity issue, I believe the early church understood which writings were God's word, which the Apostles of Christ had written. Just because the later churches formally listed those books doesn't mean they didn't understand this earlier.
I consider it to be a FACT that the same body that determined the NT canon at the same time had the papacy and Mary as "the mother of God" both established. Could they be so right on the canon, and so wrong on the others? That doesn't make historical sense or honesty.
There has been much controversy and discussion about when the papacy was established and when the doctrines of Mary developed. We don't agree on the 'facts' about these issues. It isn't clear that those things were established at that time. And as I said above, there is much evidence that the NT was recognized long before it was formally listed.
Teresa, you must have been right there when I accidentally posted as my daughter. I caught it right away and reposted as myself. I'm not used to my daughters being signed in. It seems to happen alot now.
If I may be so bold, please pray for my father-in-law who had surgery today with serious complications. Seems weird to ask people I don't "know", but I think you will put up with it. Thanks.
Thanks - he is still in ICU but is doing much better. He had had an aortic aneurysm repair that then cut off circulation to one leg, necessitating a second surgery. He's 91! But quite the survivor. I really appreciate your concern and prayers.
42 comments:
He's confused right off the bat:
Mizzi: By the time of his death, Newman believed the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope. However papal infallibility was a mere theological opinion at the time of his conversion to Catholicism. [Me: nope] A popular Catholic catechism at that time asked, ‘Must not Catholics believe the pope in himself to be infallible?’ The catechism answered, ‘This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of Catholic faith.’ (Keenan's Controversial Catechism, 1851). [Me: the key words that make it "no article of the Catholic faith" are "in himself"]
Me: In other words, that catechism is correcting the "Protestant invention" that papal infallibility extends to the pope personally.
Mizzi: A few years later, by 1870, the ‘Protestant invention’ was declared dogma by the First Vatican Council.
Me: No, the Protestant invention was not declared dogma.
Christine, could you clarify what you mean by "the key words that make it "no article of the Catholic faith" are "in himself"?
Is the original book by Keenan visible online (the 1851 edition)so that the quote may be read in fuller context? All I can seem to find are more recent editions.
The pope "in himself" is not infallible. He by divine assistance is prevented from teaching a fallible dogma. The pope, when exercising his office as the Vicar of Christ, speaking with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, may proclaim dogma. It is never really the pope alone or "in himself" that is infallible.
Anonymous,
I found 'A Doctrinal Catechism' by Keenan here: http://biblelight.net/keenan.htm
It's not the same book, but it might shed some light on the subject. I did a search of the word 'infallible' in the document and found some passages about the infallibility of the Pope.
Here's 'Controversial Catechism' on Google books; probably not complete, but it may be an early version. http://books.google.com/books?id=LuMCAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Keenan%27s+Controversial+Catechism&hl=en&ei=aQ67Tc3bN4-Wtwe2qM20BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false
You may not agree with the concept of infallibility, but this link does explain it fairly well.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IV
I think Dr. Mizzi's point was that it isn't true that 'to be deep in history is to cease to be protestant' and that Cardinal Newman himself later admitted that. Newman didn't stay true to his own understanding. He chose to ignore the inconsistencies and remain Catholic.
I'm wondering if the original version of Keenan's book said 'in himself' or left that out. I've seen several quotes online that leave those words out.
"I think Dr. Mizzi's point was that it isn't true that 'to be deep in history is to cease to be protestant'"
Yes, of course that is one of Mizzi's points. Hardly surprising. However, there is no evidence that Newman later denied the deep in history statement. Mizzi would like to interpret Newman to say that he did deny the deep in history statement but the evidence he uses is unconvincing. It was in great part Newman's study of history that led him to the Church and kept him in the Church. The quote he uses from "The Month" is just not enough without being able to read that entire referenced article. My suspicion is that he no more has read that article than he has read the original 1851 catechism he mentions but has just passed on something he has read somewhere else, perhaps another blog. Perhaps he should provide links that are available.
what is claimed for the pope is infallibility merely, not impeccability or inspiration (see above under I). (from John's link above)
Oh dear, what's 'impeccability'?
Oh here's something from section I: "that it does not require holiness of life, much less imply impeccability in its organs; sinful and wicked men may be God's agents in defining infallibly;"
I don't think I agree with that. The Old Testament prophets of God that wrote scripture were kept from speaking and writing error, but none of them were considered wicked men after they were called as prophets, I think. Some false prophets are mentioned in Scripture, but the prophets who wrote Scripture were not wicked. The Apostles were all Godly men, though not perfect. They didn't
live wicked lives.
I suppose it's possible that God could use someone wicked, but why should we trust him if he doesn't even attempt to live in obedience?
Anonymous explained what I meant.
The problem is that, right off the bat, Mizzi misrepresents the Catholic teaching regarding papal infallibly, and then that just undercuts his credibility.
I don't know about the technical designation of "prophet" but there are certainly many examples of people who did wicked things, and God used them in amazing ways, such as King David. Of course any personal sin of popes is a huge detriment to the witness of the Church. But it does not invalidate the chair of Peter, any more than the personal sins of a writer of any of the books of scripture invalidate the inspiration and inerrancy of what he wrote. The Holy Spirit protects the Church from error in doctrinal matters, and this belief is derived from the "gates of hell will not prevail against it" promise of Jesus that we have discussed before. We know that Protestants and Catholics disagree about His meaning there.
I wish Dr. Mizzi had told us what he thinks Newman's statement means.
Are we now surprised that Newman wasn't infallible? He changed his mind. Thank God for the ability to change one's mind. The Church is Teacher and Newman got schooled.
In my experience, papal infallibility is one of those doctrines that is caricatured by those who reject it. That seems to be what the old catechism has in mind.
Exactly.
Here is the document that Dr. Mizzi was quoting from [‘Nothing would be better than an Historical Review for Roman Catholics – but who would bear it? Unless one doctored all one’s facts, one would be thought a bad Catholic’ (The Month, Jan. 1903, p.3).]
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:XmTkdWFvZ0sJ:www.umanitoba.ca/colleges/st_pauls/ccha/Back%2520Issues/CCHA1968/McDougall.pdf+The+Month,+Jan.+1903,+p.3+cardinal+john+henry+newman,+%E2%80%98Nothing+would+be+better+than+an+Historical+Review+for+Roman+Catholics+%E2%80%93+but+who+would+bear+it%3F+Unless+one+doctored+all+one%E2%80%99s+facts,+one+would+be+thought+a+bad+Catholic%E2%80%99&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiHeuum5aoP_8YdlHqcJArv6mCk5G3oEp2m3aOeHInmGntqXfbtTs2BzsUTG4xwzuA4yVobcnrEvbFXWIPpWi_zSup940t-Zg0AioHW9gCyeOqrHO2d9aVbUBWCBiodRFEbGO6p&sig=AHIEtbShlsDwA5Xf6CTUpN5222kuU65pWA
The article above was titled 'Newman--Historian or Apologist?' and is basically saying that Newman used history to prove what he thought was important rather than writing about history to show what actually happened.
It's significant if he thought 'one would have to doctor the facts' to be considered a good Catholic. That means, obviously, that he believed the Catholic church didn't stand upon the true facts of history.
'Newman--Historian or Apologist' also brings out Newman's theory of the development of doctrine which seems to be in response to his understanding that, contrary to Church teaching, doctrines had changed and been added over time.
The article also states about Newman (p. 6-7): "Citing the progress of the Arian
heresy he made the point that it was the ordinary faithful who then preserved orthodox tradition while the bishops often tolerated Arianism." He recognized that Apostolic succession did not preserve the Church. Adherence to the truth by the faithful, by the guidance of the Spirit and the Word, is what preserves it.
Jennie wrote: "it was the ordinary faithful who then preserved orthodox tradition while the bishops often tolerated Arianism."
Sometimes God's plan comes down to one man, e.g., Jesus.
Athanasius, deacon and later bishop of Alexandra, was that one man during the Arian Controversy.
My opinion is that this is just how history is remembered, for dramatic effect: Athanasius contra mundum, etc.
We have no way of knowing what the ordinary faithful thought - is there a 4th cent. Samuel Pepys? - and I suspect ordinary people believed as their bishop taught them.
I do remember reading in Davis - but I can't find the quote - that, before Nicaea, ordinary people debated christology in the market place like we might debate politics (or not) today. Constantine's citizens were intensely interested in the issues but it was an intellectual exercise with little personal application. Everyone rooted for their favorite faction.
I'm sure I've recommended Davis's book before. He goes into great detail, citing positions of various bishops and their cities, before and after Nicaea I, before and after Constantinople I.
Thanks, Moonshadow, for remembering Athanasius contra mundum.
Jennie and I have already had this discussion about Arianism, and how the bishops as individuals are not the magisterium, and how the Church definitively decided the question then and still does so today.
If "the people" were always the ones who preserve the "truth", then the Church would approve artificial birth control, since the majority of Catholics apparently agree with it. Many thought Pope Paul VI would do just that, but instead he produced Humanae Vitae.
Athanasius contra mundum.
the bishops as individuals are not the magisterium, and how the Church definitively decided the question then and still does so today.
If "the people" were always the ones who preserve the "truth", then the Church would approve artificial birth control, since the majority of Catholics apparently agree with it.
We're getting off the point, but that was my fault for bringing up a side issue from the 'Month' article about Newman.
I wasn't saying that 'the people' are always the ones who preserve truth, but that Newman recognized in that instance that the people had followed the truth, while most of the bishops had not. Athanasius of course was an exception, and was used by God as a faithful saint to turn things around.
You said 'the Church decided the question', and you are right that the bishops did decide the question finally. However, the bishops are not 'the Church'. The believers as a body are 'the church'. And God always preserves a remnant of those who remain faithful, and often calls a man, like Athanasius, (as Teresa brought out) to lead the people and challenge those who are wrong.
Does anyone have anything to say about Newman's use of history, and his ability to ignore facts in order to support his cause? Shouldn't Christianity always stand upon Truth, in history and in Scripture?
Jennie, you treated my comment fairly, thanks. Absolutely right that when I say "the Church" in this context, I am speaking of the Magisterium. It's kind of like when you say "The Word of God" and I know you mean the Bible, whereas I would say the Word of God is much more than that, and you'd agree, I think.
Sorry for the off-topic-ness, I really didn't get further than the initial inaccurate section by Dr. Mizzi that I reacted to in my first comment.
It's kind of like when you say "The Word of God" and I know you mean the Bible, whereas I would say the Word of God is much more than that, and you'd agree, I think.
Whenever I say 'the Word of God' it's with the understanding that Christ Himself and His written and spoken word cannot be separated, so I would agree. I usually capitalize 'Word' when I mean Christ as a person.
Whoa - just hearing the news about Osama bin Laden.
Me too. I wonder if it's true. I had thought he was dead already, but you never know.
REALLY off-topic now, but I like this:
http://www.elizabethesther.com/2011/05/should-christians-exult-in-bin-ladens-death.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ThreesACrowd+%28Elizabeth+Esther%29
Elizabeth said it very well. I can be happy that justice has been served, and I can be very grateful to the men and women that served it for our country, but I can't exult in Osama Bin Laden's death.
Scripture does say, as Turretinfan posted: When it goeth well with the righteous, the city rejoiceth: and when the wicked perish, there is shouting. (Proverbs 11:10)
The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked. (Psalm 58:10)
However, I think it is rejoicing that evil has been vanquished, not exulting in the personal suffering and death of a human being.
Jennie wrote: Does anyone have anything to say about Newman's use of history, and his ability to ignore facts in order to support his cause?
I won't accuse Newman of being dishonest - that's your point, not mine.
My point in mentioning later history writers like Davis is that, as good a historian as Newman's contemporaries like Lord Acton thought him to be, research methods have advanced since their time (and certainly since the time of the Reformation) and so there's a fuller picture today of what went on "way back when."
It doesn't make much sense to me for Dr. Mizzi to quote two contemporaries who compliment (not necessarily complement, but maybe that as well) one another when the discipline (or science) has moved on since.
We think the writing of history ought to be objective but, as much as this is achieved, it's a recent approach.
Peace.
Teresa,
you have a point about the discipline of history. And I don't know if Newman was being dishonest, whether deliberately or not. I don't think he was being deliberately dishonest, but he may have wanted to believe something so much that he couldn't or wouldn't look at what contradicted it.
But I have gotten the impression that Catholics in general may be willing to ignore facts, or not believe them even against the evidence, if the facts contradict the Church's teachings. Is that fair?
If I asked you to give an example of a "fact" that contradicts Church teaching, you would probably come up with something that I don't think is a fact. EVERYONE thinks that other folks ignore facts. That's the basis of disagreement in general, right?
But you can give a "fact" example, and we can try to see what happens :)
Newman writes: "Unless one doctored all one’s facts" (emphasis mine)
Which historic facts need doctoring for Catholicism to be true? The virgin birth, the crucifixion, the resurrection, the ascension? None of these need doctoring. Newman exaggerates.
But he has some facts in mind. Which ones?
I don't know and Dr. Mizzi doesn't tell us. Let's guess at some: did St. Dominic give us the Rosary? Did Moses write the entire Pentateuch? I'm short on time but you get the idea. Maybe as Christine says these aren't important matters.
From what Dr. Mizzi posted/linked to, I get the impression that Newman left the Church of England because Anglicanism was becoming too liberal. Newman turned to the Roman Church because it was not liberal but I think he was surprised at just how conservative it was!
I think we can make a substitution in that popular Newman quotation: "To be deep in history is to cease to be a liberal." I think "liberal" and "Protestant" were synonymous in his mind, certainly true for his time, before the rise of Fundamentalism in the early 20th century.
My two cents. Peace.
But you can give a "fact" example, and we can try to see what happens :)
Which historic facts need doctoring for Catholicism to be true?
Christine and Teresa,
the first two things which come to mind, and which we've discussed here before, are: the Church's claims for the Papacy, and the Church's claims for Mary 'the Mother of God'. These are probably the most contested areas between protestants and Catholics. Both of these areas don't stand up historically according to what the Church teaches about them.
Jennie, it throws me off when you post as your daughter because I think it's another "voice" in the conversation.
Alright, here's a criticism of such doctrines as those in The English review, putting words in the mouth of the Church of Rome:
"'Our doctrine was, beyond doubt, taught by Jesus Christ to his Apostles, and from them has been handed down, without the least addition or innovation, to the present day; therefore it is the only true faith. - We deny this positively. Our doctrine was only taught in its outline to the Apostles. There were great defects in the original revelation, and the human mind has made large additions to the original stock of doctrines in the course of ages, which the Church has placed amongst her articles of faith.'"
The "Review" (an Anglican periodical of the previous century?) called Newman a "Developmentist" who says (in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine) that beliefs like the Trinity weren't formally acknowledged until the fourth century.
So, maybe the Trinity is the type of fact that Newman felt would scandalize the Faithful had they known it came about so late.
But the point of "The English review" is that the faith was "once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3) "in those sacred books which all Christendom from the beginning acknowledged as the divinely-inspired record of their faith" (another contested point in our modern day).
How honest can "The English review" afford to be on that last point - about the NT being acknowledged from the beginning as the divinely-inspired record - and still maintain their argument?
Honest history includes the NT in the "development of doctrine."
Yes to all that Moonshadow said, and I consider it to be a FACT that the same body that determined the NT canon at the same time had the papacy and Mary as "the mother of God" both established. Could they be so right on the canon, and so wrong on the others? That doesn't make historical sense or honesty. But we've already had this same discussion. I appreciate how Moonshadow has new evidence to share. It seems simple to me that we know when the determination of the canon was made, and we know from the writings of the fathers what other things were believed at that same time.
that beliefs like the Trinity weren't formally acknowledged until the fourth century.
Teresa, I believe the Jews, including those who became the first Christians, understood the concept of God as three persons.
http://www.layevangelism.com/qreference/chapter10e.htm
If so, then it doesn't matter whether it was 'formally acknowledged by the fourth century church. The first church understood it.
Honest history includes the NT in the "development of doctrine."
Again, just like the Trinity issue, I believe the early church understood which writings were God's word, which the Apostles of Christ had written. Just because the later churches formally listed those books doesn't mean they didn't understand this earlier.
I consider it to be a FACT that the same body that determined the NT canon at the same time had the papacy and Mary as "the mother of God" both established. Could they be so right on the canon, and so wrong on the others? That doesn't make historical sense or honesty.
There has been much controversy and discussion about when the papacy was established and when the doctrines of Mary developed. We don't agree on the 'facts' about these issues. It isn't clear that those things were established at that time. And as I said above, there is much evidence that the NT was recognized long before it was formally listed.
Teresa, you must have been right there when I accidentally posted as my daughter. I caught it right away and reposted as myself. I'm not used to my daughters being signed in. It seems to happen alot now.
If I may be so bold, please pray for my father-in-law who had surgery today with serious complications. Seems weird to ask people I don't "know", but I think you will put up with it. Thanks.
I'll pray for him, Christine. I hope he recovers well.
Christine, how is your father-in-law doing? I hope he's recovering ok.
Thanks - he is still in ICU but is doing much better. He had had an aortic aneurysm repair that then cut off circulation to one leg, necessitating a second surgery. He's 91! But quite the survivor. I really appreciate your concern and prayers.
I'm so glad he's doing better, Christine.
Post a Comment