Presently, within the Catholic Church, there is much discussion concerning the development of doctrine. Traditionally, doctrinal development was understood to be an authentic growth in the Church’s understanding and articulation of what had always been believed and taught.
John Henry Cardinal Newman was one of the first to offer this understanding of authentic doctrinal development. Within the contemporary discussion on the nature of the development of doctrine, Newman’s teaching is often invoked. However, some theologians and a few bishops proffer, at times, the notion that what was previously considered binding in faith upon all members of the Church is no longer viable and justifiable. That the Church’s teaching needs to be altered given the sociological, philosophical, and theological changes that are now taking place within the Church and society. The doctrinal and moral changes that are deemed necessary are, nonetheless, asserted to be legitimate doctrinal and ethical developments, even though they may contradict what had been perennially taught. Because these changes are so revolutionary in nature, those who promote them speak of a “paradigm shift,” that is, a radically complete alteration of one set of beliefs to another.
Given this present misrepresentation over what constitutes true and authentic doctrinal and moral development, a distortion that causes confusion among the faithful, it would be beneficial to examine what Cardinal Newman teaches, and how and why it is extremely relevant in light of today’s contentious ecclesial milieu.
When considering the thought and writings of a great man, it is difficult to find a starting point, for his thought is commensurate with the man himself. John Henry Cardinal Newman is such a man. Thus, to understand Newman’s authoritative and seminal work, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, one needs to know, at least in part, his intellectual journey – a voyage that led him to the Catholic Church, of which his writing on the development of Christian doctrine was integrally instrumental.
Newman’s Life: The Development of his Character and Thought
Born in 1801, Newman was the eldest of six children. His early religious orientation was toward Calvinism and Fundamentalism. However, in 1816, during a five-month illness, Newman had what he later referred to as a conversion. During his convalescence, Newman, through reading and prayer, gained a profound awareness of God’s presence, as well as a love for the Fathers of the Church and the intellectual life. He also, at this time, developed an intense fear and abhorrence of Roman Catholicism and the papacy. All these character forming experiences are quite an achievement for a young man of 15.
Newman first studied at Oxford and then became a Fellow at Oriel College. He was also ordained an Anglican priest. Besides teaching, Newman was the select preacher at St. Mary the Virgin, the university church. Shortly after he returned from a trip to Europe, a bill for the disestablishment of the Church of England was introduced before Parliament. In this political and ecclesial context, Newman, Richard Hurrell Froude (1803–36), John Keble (1792–1866), and Edward Pusey (1800–82), took to writing Tracts for the Times, and in so doing initiated what came to be known as the Oxford Movement. Out of the eventual ninety tracts written, Newman wrote twenty-six, the most famous being the last – Tract 90.
During this period, though he tried to find a Via Media (a Middle Way) between liberal Protestantism within the Anglican Church and the corruptions of the medieval Catholic Church, Newman became more and more doubtful of the legitimacy of the Anglican Church. Nonetheless, he sought to find such legitimacy for his Via Media in the Fathers of the Church and the early Councils. He hoped to discover that what the early church held was the middle position between the various heresies confronted at the time, and if that was the case, the Church of England, by remaining true to antiquity, would be founded upon the solid rock of orthodoxy. However, the more he studied the theological history of the early church, the more Newman became haunted by a disquieting question. Why was Rome always on the correct side when it came to upholding the authentic doctrines of the Church? Slowly, the inevitable conclusion dawned upon him. The side was right because Rome was on it.
What further pushed Newman away from his Anglican heritage and toward the Catholic Church was the virulent, and often malicious, reaction to what he proposed in Tract 90. In this final Tract, Newman wanted to demonstrate that the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, that is, the foundational doctrines upon which the faith of the Anglican Church stood, were directed at the corruptions within the Catholic Church at the time of the Reformation. Nonetheless, the Articles, Newman argued, were quite compatible to and reconcilable with the doctrines promulgated at the Council of Tent. Within this interpretation, Anglicanism was not a form of Protestantism, but was instead authentically Catholic in nature. However, theologians and bishops of the Protestant, liberal wing of the Church of England were furious. They not only disparaged and criticized Newman’s Catholic understanding of the Anglican Church, but they also pilloried and vilified him. In response to such outbursts of negativity, Newman sought refuge by retiring to Littlemore, a small village on the outskirts of Oxford. Before proceeding to what transpired there between 1841-1845, a few comments on the nature of doctrinal development that is presently taking place in the Catholic Church may be beneficial.
Newman was desperate to demonstrate that his beloved Church of England professed the same faith as that held by the church of antiquity and continued to be acknowledged throughout the proceeding centuries down to his own. By so demonstrating, Newman felt he could authenticate the historical and theological legitimacy of the Anglican Church. Whatever changes may have occurred over the course of the centuries, such modifications were authentic developments that were in accord with its ancient catholic lineage. While he wanted to testify to the theological and so ecclesial continuity between the Anglican Church of his day and that of the ancient past, what surprised Newman was that the liberal, progressive, Protestant element in the Anglican communion wanted to confirm the very opposite. Yes, they professed the ancient faith of the early church, yet they also believed that they had rightly rejected the heretical elements that had found their way into the Roman Church. Thus, their interpretation of the doctrinal and ecclesial development that took place over the centuries was one of discontinuity and not simply one of continuity.
Now presently within the Catholic Church, there are theologians, priests, and bishops who want to imitate what Protestantism and Anglicanism did in the past. They desire to change the doctrinal and moral teaching of the Church in a manner that would be discontinuous with the perennial theological, conciliar, and magisterial teaching of the Church. Moreover, like the liberal Protestants within the Anglican Church of Newman’s day, they do not see such changes as heretical, but as legitimate doctrinal and moral developments given the societal, philosophical, and theological currents of the present day. As the Protestant and Anglican reformations were not founded upon the renewal of what had always been believed, but upon the present cultural Zeitgeist of the time, so contemporary “Catholic reformers,” while giving a nod to the past, have fully embraced today’s cultural Zeitgeist, a spirit that is inimical to the gospel and the doctrinal and moral teaching that is contained within and developed from of it. These “reformers,” contrary to Newman’s expressed intentions, offer a theory whereby the development of doctrine is discontinuous, for only a proposal discontinuous with the past is a true development. If what was proposed was continuous with the past, it would not be a development but merely be the repetition of what was held previously. With this preliminary analysis and critique of the present discussion of the development of doctrine within the Catholic Church in the light of Newman’s thought, we can now examine what he proposed in his treatise: An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.
Newman: On the Development of Christian Doctrine
When undertaking an investigation of Newman’s book on the development of doctrine, one must keep in mind that his treatise is historical in nature and not a philosophical opus nor even, in a sense, a theological work. By examining the church of antiquity, and noting the doctrinal development within that antiquity, only then could one devise a theory on the nature of doctrinal development. Moreover, one must also be aware that there are two editions of Newman’s essay. The first version, published in 1845 at the time of his conversion, and then, in 1878, a revised edition. (I will be quoting solely from the revised edition.) In the Introduction to his Essay, Newman wrote that his hypothesis
is to consider that the society of Christians which the Apostles left on earth were of that religion to which the Apostles had converted them; that the external continuity of name, profession, and communion, argues for a real continuity of doctrine; that as Christianity began by manifesting itself as of a certain shape and bearing to all mankind, therefore it went on so to manifest itself.
Thus, Newman believed that Christianity of his day was doctrinally the same as that of the early church. He did “admit that there are in fact certain variations in its teaching, which have to be explained,” nevertheless, he would attempt “to explain them to the exculpation of that teaching in point of unity, directness and consistency.”
Newman insisted that the issue of the variations that occurred in the Church’s teaching over the years, could not be solved by maintaining that there was a discontinuity from what was taught in the past. Such a view, Newman thought, would undermine the integrity of revealed truth itself. In this light, Newman argued that revealed truth itself demands doctrinal development:
The increase and expansion of the Christian Creed and ritual, and the variations which have attended the process in the case of individual writers and Churches, are the necessary attendants on any philosophy or polity which takes possession of the intellect and heart, and has had any wide or extended dominion; that, from the nature of the human mind, time is necessary for the full comprehension and perfection of great ideas; and the highest and most wonderful truths, though communicated to the world once for all by inspired teachers, could not be comprehended all at once by the recipients, but, through media which were human have required only the longer time and deeper thought for their full elucidation. This may be called the Theory of Development of Doctrine.
In this long and complex sentence, we perceive that Newman contends that truths, particularly revealed truths, as found in scripture and the Church’s tradition, cannot, by their very nature, immediately be fully comprehended. Only over the course of time, having been pondered and studied in various ways, is a fuller understanding obtained. This is an ever-growing intellectual process of both heart and mind. Thus, revealed truth is constantly developing in its doctrinal understanding. Truth itself does not change, but the Church’s further comprehension of its faith does, by necessity, advance.
The Need for an Infallible Authority
Having established the necessity of doctrinal development, Newman takes up the issue as to how one is to discern authentic doctrinal development from that false or unauthentic doctrinal development. Here, Newman, somewhat surprisingly, puts forth a foundational principle that will govern all other criteria for authenticating true doctrinal development. Although God’s revelation is found within scripture, yet its proper interpretation must be guaranteed through the course of time. Moreover, Christianity lives in a world of history, politics, ideologies, cultures, and philosophies, and yet revelation, and the salvation that it contains, must not be subsumed into any political or philosophical ideology. Who, then, is to protect scripture and the Church’s teaching from false interpretations, and who is to authenticate genuine doctrinal development? For Newman, there must be, a priori, an authority that can infallibly judge what is true and what is false development. With the above in mind, Newman maintains that a living magisterium, under divine direction, is thus seen to be imperative. To reject an infallible authority leads, inevitably, in the passage of time, to a break from unity. Such a break is observed in the case of Protestantism, or else the dogmatic principle is violated, as in Anglicanism, to the point of tolerating, within one and the same community, all kinds of contradictory opinions. Ultimately, then, belief, for Newman, is founded upon authority, first upon the authority of Jesus Christ as the head of the Church, and, subsequently then, upon the infallible authority of the Church, which Newman believes is found in the Roman Catholic Church. History bears out such a conclusion. Only in the Catholic Church does one find a continual authentic development coupled with infallible teaching.
However, Newman puts forward a hypothetical, though frightening, hypothesis. What if a council or a pope were to teach a doctrine that would contradict a previous council or pope? If such ever happened, Newman concludes that the notion of doctrinal development would be completely shattered, for who then would be able to judge what is authentically revealed and what is not? Newman’s alarming hypothesis is not so hypothetical today. Although the present pontiff himself has not overtly contradicted the traditional magisterial teaching regarding faith and morals, he has allowed others – regional and universal synods, priests, bishops, even cardinals – to propose teachings that blatantly contravene what the Church has perennially taught. At times, he has verbally expressed his disapproval, yet he has not taken any authoritative action against such false teaching. Rather, and more troubling, he has befriended and supported those who promote notions that are contrary to the faith. He has met with them whereby he encourages them and offers support for their dubious ministries, ministries that advocate homosexuality, transgenderism, contraception, and abortion. Moreover, those who disseminate teaching that is contrary to previous Church doctrine do so under the guise that such novel teaching is a development of doctrine. Newman would be appalled and scandalized at such pontifical behavior. As will shortly be seen, he will offer principles that make untenable such erroneous claims of doctrinal development.
Here I would offer a thesis that Newman did not consider. He presumed that all pontifical teaching or teaching from bishops concerning doctrine and morals is magisterial. I propose that any pontifical teaching or teaching from bishops that overtly and deliberately contradicts the perennial teaching of previous councils and pontiffs is not magisterial teaching, precisely because it does not fall within the past magisterial doctrinal teaching. The pope or a bishop may be, by necessity of his office, a member of the magisterium, but his teaching, if it contradicts the received previous magisterial teaching, is not magisterial. Such false teaching simply fails to meet the criteria necessary to be magisterial. It possesses no ecclesial authoritative credentials. Rather, it is simply an ambiguous or flawed statement that attempts or pretends to be magisterial when it is not.
Newman’s Seven Principles of Authentic Doctrinal Development
To judge the validity of a development, Newman compiled seven criteria or principles that must be present within all true doctrinal development. Such principles are extremely relevant given the present misuse of the notion of doctrinal development in today’s Church.
Preservation of Type
Newman’s first criteria is “preservation of type.” For Newman this preservation of type is readily suggested within nature itself. While an animal grows, such as a dog, it remains the same animal, dog, from beginning to end. Thus, for Newman, although doctrines may develop, their essential core truth remains the same throughout the developmental process. Those who view doctrinal development as the change from one belief to another violate this first criteria, as if a dog develops by becoming a cat.
Continuity of Principles
The second criteria inherent within the development of doctrine is quite complex. Newman terms it the “continuity of principles.” These principles are the interior driving forces that compel doctrinal development, and they find their source within the Incarnation. Newman lists ten:
1. The principle of dogma, that is, the revelation of supernatural truths.
2. The principle of faith, that is, an assent on the part of the person to the revealed truth.
3. The principle of theology or scientific study of revelation.
4. The sacramental principle which demands, because of the Incarnation, visible enactments of salvation throughout history.
5. The mystical sense of scripture, that is, scripture reveals more than what is apparent at first.
6. The principle of grace or the making of human beings into the likeness of Christ.
7. The principle of asceticism or the need for mortification and prayer.
8. The principle of the malignity of sin.
9. The principle that matter is capable of sanctification.
10. The principle of development, that is, that one’s understanding of revelation needs to grow.
Various heresies have denied one or other of these principles. For example, Luther and Calvin denied the sacramental nature of the church; the Manicheans denied the sanctification of matter; and the Modernist denies revealed truths.
Today, because of sociological, psychological, and philosophical advancements, there are those theologians, priests, and bishops who hold that past developments must give way to an entirely new set of doctrines, doctrines contrary to what have been previously held. They, therefore, would find Newman’s principles not to their liking, for the very purpose of these principles is ensure doctrinal continuity throughout the course of time. Such persons want to deny that there are dogmatic revealed truths to which the faithful must, for all time, give absolute assent. For example, within their perceived need for a paradigm shift, approval would now be given to new “doctrines,” and the purpose of theology would be to ascertain what those new doctrines and moral norms would be, ones that would now be discovered in an innovative interpretation of scripture. Moreover, then, given the radical transformation of culture, sins that were considered to be mortal or deadly, many of which are sexual in nature, would now be thought to advance holiness – if done in love. Such an understanding is gnostic in nature. The body is not seen as constitutive of who one is, one’s identity. Rather, one “uses” one’s body to become the person one is authentically meant to be – such as a sodomite, a fornicator, an adulterer, or a transgendered person. Thus, what it means to grow into the grace-filled likeness of Christ radically changes. What was previously considered a sinful distortion of one’s likeness to Christ now becomes an exemplary and appropriate configuration into his image. Although the above may strike the Catholic faithful, clerical and lay alike, as bizarre, those who promote such a revolutionary change in doctrinal development, and so a radical rejection of Newman’s principles for an authentic development of doctrine, are convinced that their agenda is the cutting-edge of the Church’s future. Again, those Catholics who reject such a futuristic agenda are ridiculed as rigid and backward-looking.
The Power to Assimilate
Newman’s third criteria for ascertaining a proper development of Christian doctrine is that of the power of assimilation. After vigorously arguing against what cannot be assimilated into doctrinal development without undermining the doctrine itself, it may, at first, seem odd that Newman should now assert that assimilation is necessary for the development of doctrine. For Newman, as nature, such as a tree, assimilates elements that are foreign to it in order to grow, such as water and minerals, so the Church and her doctrines assimilate elements that are, at first, foreign. For example, the Church assimilates the various customs of peoples throughout the world, or integrates different truths found within diverse philosophies, or accommodates diverse forms of governments depending upon where it exists. Importantly, amid these numerous assimilations, the Church does not lose its identity nor do its doctrines change by such accommodations. Rather, by being amenable, but discerning, to the environment in which it finds itself, the hurch more easily embeds itself and its doctrines within all cultural and political milieus and among all peoples. For Newman, what cannot happen is that the culture of various peoples or the polity of a particular nation absorbs the Church, and in so doing undermines the integrity of its doctrine. This was a live issue for Newman, for this is exactly what took place in England. The Catholic Church became the Church of England, and thus came under the authority of the government of England.
Today, in most democratic countries where there is a proper separation of church and state and the freedom of religion, the Church can maintain its integral identity and sustain its doctrinal truths. However, those who wish to change the Church’s teaching, in the name of doctrinal development, often elicit support from the respective government. They do so because they recognize that such support will not come from within the Church itself. Heretics in the past have often engaged in this kind of subversive behavior. Arius and the Arians of the fourth century enjoined the emperor to persecute those bishops and priests who upheld the creed of the Council of Nicaea. Similarly, Lutheranism became the state religion in parts of Germany and Calvinism became the civic religion of Geneva. Similarly, today, there are those who encourage the government, often surreptitiously, to enact laws that would attempt to force the Church to change its teaching, for example, forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions or vasectomies, or make available contraceptives. Likewise, in the name of gender equality, they urge governments to enact laws that would coerce the Church to sacramentally ordain women, lest it run afoul of the law. This soft form of persecution may be worrisome, yet the Church cannot reconcile itself with the present culture in the hope of achieving a peaceful coexistence. To do so would be to abandon its doctrine.
Logical Sequence
The fourth criterion for determining a proper development of Christian doctrine is that of logical sequence. By logical sequence, Newman does not mean a sequence that can be deductively reasoned in a syllogistic manner. Rather, upon perceiving the result of a process, one grasps that it logically flows from what preceded it. Newman gives the example of Jesus’ divinity. From the biblical evidence, one cannot syllogistically conclude that Jesus is God, yet considering all that is proclaimed concerning him in the New Testament, it is logical to conclude that he is indeed the Father’s divine Son. Two further examples may illustrate this principle, those concerning the doctrine of Mary’s Immaculate Conception and her Assumption, body and soul, into heaven, neither of which are explicitly declared in scripture. Yet, over the centuries, devotion to Mary progressed such that, because she is the Mother of God, it is right and proper to believe that she was conceived without sin and assumed gloriously into heaven. There is an inherent logic to this historical doctrinal development, though one that cannot be reduced to a syllogism. This criterion is important as a response to those who propose as doctrines teachings that have no historical anticipatory warranty, such as women priests or sexual acts that have traditionally been declared sinful. These proposals do not logically flow any preceding historical evidence.
Anticipation of the Future
Newman gives as his fifth criteria that of anticipation of the future. This criterion is similar to the preceding one – that of logically flowing from what was previously held, and so anticipated in the future. Nonetheless, Newman here wants to accentuate what scripture, the Church Fathers, or the thought of previous theologians taught. Also, this doctrinal development may have also laid hidden within earlier dogmatic declarations. For example, within the Latin western tradition, the Son is declared to be begotten of the Father, and that the Father loves the Son in the love of the Holy Spirit and the Son loves of the Father in the same love of the Spirit. Therefore, in accordance with Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and the subsequent tradition, the Holy Spirit is doctrinally declared to proceed from the Father and the Son. Thus, what was initially believed was the theological impetus to what came to be held at a future time. What is observed here is that what doctrinally developed in the past finds in fulfillment in what was doctrinally developed in the future, thus mutually confirming the doctrinal authenticity of both.
Conservative Action Upon the Past
The preceding two criteria lead Newman to his sixth criterion – conservative action upon the past. For Newman, because previous doctrinal developments have been authenticated, they cannot be judged at a future time to be erroneous or corrupt. This criterion is particularly relevant to the present ecclesial situation. Those who propose radical doctrinal changes, changes that are not in accord with previous developments, cannot possibly be true, for they would contravene the truth of previously held doctrines. For Newman, the development of Christian doctrine means that what was doctrinally believed previously is clarified and advanced. Doctrinal development is not the radical shift of believing something entirely different. Thus, Newman would be adamantly opposed to the contemporary notion of a doctrinal paradigm shift wherein there is no doctrinal rapport between the past and the present. Such an understanding simply eradicates the previous doctrines and their development. Ultimately, such a paradigm shift gives way to relativism wherein enduring truth ceases to exist. What one embraces, as noted before, is merely the contemporary Zeitgeist, and as the saying goes, “He who marries the Zeitgeist of today quickly becomes a widow.” Thus, bishops, cardinals, priests, and theologians who have espoused today’s fads need to seriously rethink their positions lest they soon be mocked and ridiculed for being intransigent, retrograde rigorists. However, doctrinal truth and its authentic development are always relevant. They never go out of vogue, as Newman well knew.
Chronic Vigor
The above principle leads to Newman’s seventh and last criteria – that of chronic vigor. Newman rightly perceives that heresies are short lived in that they solve the mystery contained in the doctrine. For example, Arius, to preserve the oneness of God, denied that the Son was truly God, but rather the highest creature. In so doing, he preserved the oneness of God, but abolished the mystery of the Trinity. Nothing more could be developed – all that could be known has now been determined. However, the Council of Nicaea, in declaring that the Son of God was consubstantial with the Father, the mystery of the Trinity was not only preserved, but it also allowed for future developments in understanding the nature of the Trinity – the mystery contained, in accordance with Newman’s principle, its chronic vigor. This vigor is also found in Aquinas’s teaching that the persons of the Trinity are subsistent relations, that is, they subsist or exist as who they are only in relation to one another. The Father subsists as Father in relation to the Son and Holy Spirit. The Son subsists as Son in relation to the Father and the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit subsists as the Holy Spirit in relation to the Father and the Son. Thus, what must be grasped here is that the development of doctrine is not the solving of a theological problem or conundrum. Rather doctrinal development consists of the further elucidating of a mystery so as to grasp more clearly the nature of the mystery. The mystery may be more clearly perceived but it continues to be an incomprehensible mystery. One knows more fully what the mystery is, but the mystery itself remains incomprehensible. By remaining incomprehensible, the mystery continues to possess its chronic vigor – its openness for a deeper developmental understanding.
Again, given today’s ecclesial milieu, those synods, bishops, priests, and theologians, in proposing novel doctrines that articulate teachings contrary to the ancient mysteries of faith, fall into a twofold interrelated error. First, they fail to recognize the enduring developmental vigor that resides in the mysteries they wish to replace. Second, what they recommend as replacements cease to be life-giving, for they do not contain the truth of the life-giving gospel. For example, some propose that those who were sacramentally married and yet presently divorced are permitted, upon remarrying, to receive the Eucharist may appear to be a merciful solution that resolves a sad situation, and, in so doing, be rightly termed a development of doctrine. However, this supposed solution terminates the indissoluble sacramental nature of marriage. Moreover, it undermines the sanctity of the Eucharist, that is, one who is objectively in the state of mortal sin, and, thus not in living communion with Christ and his Church, nonetheless, is permitted to receive communion. This flaunts the truth that to receive Jesus in holy communion one must be in communion with him and with his body, the Church. The partaking of the Eucharist becomes an enacted lie. One appears to be in living communion with the Church, when, in fact, one is not. Thus, this seeming pastoral solution is not a doctrinal development, but one that condones sin, violates the sacrament of marriage, and abuses the sanctity of the Eucharist.
Conclusion
This essay has attempted to offer, in the light of John Henry Cardinal Newman’s teaching, an authentic and proper understanding of the nature of the development of doctrine. Simultaneously, it has endeavored to critique contemporary erroneous notions of doctrinal development, especially those proposed by some bishops, priests, and theologians within today’s church. Such false proposals may sow confusion among the faithful, clergy and laity alike, yet those faithful, who are knowledgeable and confident in their faith, will not be misled or deceived. They will instinctively, because of their faith, know what is true doctrinal development and what is false, for the Spirit of truth resides in their hearts and minds. Moreover, they have the assurance, as the convert-Newman knew well, that Jesus will never abandon his infallible church – the ultimate judge of Christian doctrine and its development.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Thank you as always.
The Pope is promulgating pastoral heresy.
The Pope does not teach doctrine because he does not want to lose his power to teach at all. He simply leads others to disobey doctrine in practice. Witness Amoralist Laetitia, etc. Like a Buffalo Jump, the Pope leads the faithful off the heretical cliff. The hungry devils are below, ready to carve us up. The Pope is sovereign and free. Nothing can stop him except death or a change of heart. As such, we pray for his heart to soften to the Truth of Christ before he dies. “ Cor ad cor loquitur.”
It is never God’s fault that He is Perfect. The merciful grace of divinization requires divine justice. God’s peace beyond all understanding is the gift of His healing forgiveness. All are welcome to repent.
From St. Augustine’s Enchiridion on Faith, Hope & Love, Ch. 80
“Sins, however great and detestable they may be, are looked upon as trivial, or not sins at all, when we get accustomed to them; and so far does this go, that such sins are not only concealed, but are biased of, and published far and wide…Woe to sinners! For it is only when we are not accustomed to sins that we shrink from them: when once we are accustomed to our sins, though the blood of the Son of God was poured out to wash them away, though they are so great that the kingdom of God is wholly shut against them, constant familiarity with our sins leads to the toleration of them all, and habitual toleration leads to the practice of many more.”
True. “ It is a sin to accommodate an occasion of sin and cooperate with that which is evil.”
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm
Perhaps it will be The U.S. Bishops who will call for a Council and thus be instrumental in The Triumph Of Our Blessed Mother’s Immaculate Heart so that there will be Peace in Christ’s Church.
“It is not possible to have Sacramental Communion without Ecclesial Communion”, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost” (Filioque), For “It Is Through Christ, With Christ, And In Christ, In The Unity Of The
Holy Ghost”, that Holy Mother Church, outside of which there is no Salvation, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque ) exists.
It is important to note that The Office of the Munus is forever, and thus The Gift Of Infallibility remains forever for a validly elected Pope, who has no authority to renounce The Gift Of The Holy Ghost, or share the Papacy. “The Form and Matter” of The Papacy, cannot be separated without changing, in essence, the essence of the Papacy.
“For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the Revelation, the Deposit of Faith, delivered through the Apostles. ”
The Office Of The MUNUS is “Forever”, as confirmed Through The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque).
Jorge Bergoglio, unlike every validly elected Pope, rejects The Office Of The MUNUS, grounded in Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, And The Teaching Of The Magisterium, The Deposit Of Faith That Christ Has Entrusted To His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, Is “Forever”, thus Pope Benedict could not have resigned The Office Of The MUNUS because for a validly elected Pope it remains “Forever”.
Even if Pope Benedict was in error when he abdicated The Ministerial Office, who can deny, that by stepping aside, Pope Benedict XVI illuminated the fact that Jorge Bergoglio was not in communion with Christ and The Magisterium Of His Church and could not have possibly hold The MUNUS because he rejected The Deposit Of Faith, and thus Ecclesial Communion, and thus Sacramental Communion.
For this is our Sacred Heritage:
The Sacred Heritage of all human persons, from the moment of conception,
Salvation Is Of The Jews, From The Father, Through The Son, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque).
https://biblehub.com/drbc/john/4.htm
Although Vatican II, may not officially have changed the Dogma Of The Catholic Church, by failing to have “The Courage to be Catholic”, and apply The Charitable Anathema to those Baptized Catholics who, in denying The Deposit Of Faith, ipso facto separated themselves from Christ and His Church, Vatican II created an obstacle to God’s Gift Of Grace And Mercy, in essence, making it appear as if it is not a sin to accommodate an occasion of sin and cooperate with evil.
“Penance , Penance, Penance.”
At the heart of Liberty Is Christ, “4For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5Have moreover tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come…”, to not believe that Christ’s Sacrifice On The Cross will lead us to Salvation, but we must desire forgiveness for our sins, and accept Salvational Love, God’s Gift Of Grace And Mercy; believe in The Power And The Glory Of Salvation Love, and rejoice in the fact that No Greater Love Is There Than This, To Desire Salvation For One’s Beloved.
“Hail The Cross, Our Only Hope.”
“Blessed are they who are Called to The Marriage Supper Of The Lamb.”
“For where your treasure is there will your heart be also.”
“Penance, Penance, Penance.”
May a Council be called so that Our Blessed Mother’s Heart Can Triumph and restore Peace to Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, outside of which, there is no Salvation, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque).
Council and thus be instrumental in The Triumph Of Our Blessed Mother’s Immaculate Heart so that there will be Peace in Christ’s Church.
Yes. See The Catholic Thing on a recent Francis’ letter using BCE rather than BC. One more offense against the Lord and the faith, from the Vatican and this pope. They likely think we are as blind as they are.
John Paul II Academy Calls for Removal of Cardinal Fernández as Vatican’s Doctrinal Chief
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm
The marital act is Life-affirming and Life-sustaining, and can only be consummated by a man and woman united in marriage as husband and wife.
The Catholic Church, and thus Faithful Catholics recognize the Sacramental Essence Of The Sacrament Of Holy Matrimony.
Here lies the great deception.
Pornography is what pornography does, it demeans the inherent Dignity of all beloved sons and daughter. Thus the desire to engage in pornographic acts of any nature, does not change the nature of the acts.
There are those, who would argue that reordering beloved sons and daughters according to their sexual desires, inclination, orientation, their so called “sexuality”, can justify engaging in sexual acts that are physically, psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually harmful, and thus are not and can never be acts of authentic Love.
This is a great deception, for no one should be engaging in such pornographic acts, including a man and woman united in marriage as husband and wife because they demean our inherent Dignity as human persons.
Love, which is rightly ordered to the inherent personal and relational Dignity of the human person, is devoid of lust.
On the issue of the Trinity:
We are taught that we are made in the image and likeness of God.
So I have a heart, mind and soul which the Beloved One tells me to use to love God.
My heart and mind and soul seem really to be three persons within me.
So I like to think of God the Father as the Mind of God;
God the Son as the Heart of God;
And God the Holy Spirit as the Soul of God.
This simplistic and admittedly imperfect image of God is more useful to me than all the ‘subsists’ in the world.
I thank God for Being a simple person.
I see no difference in homosexuality and bestiality. Perhaps it is largely a demonic affliction
I bet dogs and sheep see the difference between bestiality and homosexuality. As no doubt do most homosexuals, who are able to consent, even if to a sin.
I find your comment confusing – dogs and sheep have no moral qualms re: sex.
When gay men massively engage each other in orgiastic frenzies they are quite beastly imho. Otherwise two ‘practicing and devoted’ gays simply degrade the procreative agency into a meat grinder…pretty beastly also imho. Stinks too one might guess.
Rates of mental illness, mood disorders and anxiety are much higher in homosexual than the heterosexual population. Rates of anorectal, colon, and prostate disorders and cancer in homosexual men are about twice that for hetero males. Then, in gay men, there are sexually transmitted infections and ulcerations in the rectum and anus which do not affect the heterosexual male. Lastly and more deadly is HIV and AIDS. Gay behavior is suicidal behavior, a self loathing type behavior, and isn’t it just like the devil to lead us to call that gay.
I hope that Fr Weinandy is not trying to suggest that Cardinal Newman is a greater theologian than Tucho Fernandez!
To be fair, Tucho is an expert in one type of theology. 💋
Father, I know you are being humorous about it and that’s great. Jesus did use humor when necessary as with those who love money and their chances to enter heaven compared to a camel going through the eye of a needle, etc., etc. “Tucho” is concerned, focused and enslaved to the sexual Big “O”, while Saint John Henry Newman (canonization is just an acknowledgement) is concerned, focused and liberated by an infinitely greater Big “O”, Obedience to God, guaranteed in his 10 Principles of Doctrinal Development!!
And yet, perhaps there’s another explanation in addition to theological contradiction…
…another explanation for the apparent inability to hear or even entertain constructive critique? Pope Francis has written a preface to a book on Pope Paul VI, whom he recognizes as a “martyr” in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council. https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2024-01/pope-francis-pens-preface-of-new-book-on-paul-vi.html
Francis refers to “Paul VI’s magisterium”—possibly as if this might now be superseded by a later and equally personalized magisterium?
Francis also likens his own Evangelii Gaudium to Paul’s earlier Evangelii Nuntiandi. And, yet, there’s a potentially mutating difference in that Francis subordinates his own teaching to the malleable “principle” that “time is greater than space” (plus three other similar and italicized “principles” for viewing the Deposit of Faith).
At what points might this lens devolve in Historicism rather than advancing Newman’s “Development of Christian Doctrine”? Breaking the hermeneutics of continuity of still “walking together” with the Council and its Documents of Vatican II, and with John Paul II and Benedict XVI?
If Pope Francis sees himself more as another Paul VI, as a besieged martyr, then might this factor—and we all have factors—simplify why he apparently cannot hear the constructive critics of what his selected advisors now call “the magisterium of Pope Francis”?
…the false dichotomy between the so-called “abstract” and the “concrete,” with the most recent example being the Titanic-like puncturing of moral clarity by an enabled and floating pastoral latitude, in Fiducia Supplicans?
Malachi Martin claimed PVI ended his papacy in tears for the damages done to the Church by the smoke of Satan. Humanae Vitae seems a miraculous intervention imho.
Thanks for this very interesting essay. I consider myself reasonably familiar with Newman’s main writings but the summary is rewarding. I look forward to re-reading it a few times.
Thank you for this light in the darkness of the present understanding of magisterium as if the Pope were the Church rather than her servant assuring the continuity of the apostolic tradition until the end of time.
In simple terms, reversal is not development.
All his life, St. John Henry Newman cared deeply for the truth which he followed wherever it led him. When he converted from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism, he lost dear friends, his position at Oxford and even family members. He gave up security, not knowing what the future held. He suffered for the truth and he sacrificed for the truth.
How many of our bishops and cardinals are willing to sacrifice anything to uphold the truths of the faith? It seems we have to go to Africa to find them.
God Bless Fr. Weinandy.
This article is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn’t really resolve anything. It’s a decent presentation on Newman’s notion of development, but it does not settle complex theological questions as the author seems to think it does. For example, the Holy Father Pope Francis (not Bergolio) pointed out that the death penalty is inconsistent with the gospel and changed the Catechism, and according to some of the greatest analytical moral philosophers, like Germain Grisez and Joseph Boyle, that is certainly the case. Robert P. George would certainly agree, as well as John Finnis who I am told is now on board with this. They would argue that the ordinary teaching of the Church on the death penalty was inconsistent with Catholic principles. And of course, they are right. And that argument is consistent with Newman’s teaching on development. Hence, this article did not really settle anything, as it leads us to believe. Moreover, one cannot avoid paradigm shifts. They happen throughout history as a result of the discovery of new data. Not only do they happen in the world of science, they happen in the world of theological science. Pauline theology is paradigmatically different from Johannine theology, and the Latin Fathers are paradigmatically different from the Greeks. Anyone who “pooh pooh’s” this needs to take a deeper dive into epistemology and the theory of knowledge. Any bishop who appeals to a paradigm shift in order to usher in a morality of the sexual revolution is just deceiving himself–no need for an article like this one to refute such nonsense. But what is interesting is that there really can be developments that appear to be heretical or that appear to be complete reversals and cause a certain degree of cognitive dissonance, but are legitimate developments. Many great theologians today would argue quite convincingly that “universal salvation” is a case in point (i.e., Jordan Wood, Larry Chapp, Bishop Barron, VonBalthasar, Moltmann, Ramelli, Hryniewicz, Bulgakov, and so many others), and so many great theologians in history have shown that this is far more consistent with Scripture–especially Paul–than is the Latin West’s “eternal conscious torment”. So I wouldn’t be inclined to use Newman to justify theological complacency that is really nothing more than intellectual laziness rooted in an aversion to the cognitive dissonance that is part and parcel of genuine theological progress.
“The ordinary teaching of the Church on the death penalty was inconsistent with Catholic principles.” Are you saying self defense is inadmissible or that the death penalty is never used to protect a population from a killer that canning be jailed?
“Pauline theology is paradigmatically different from Johannine theology, and the Latin Fathers are paradigmatically different from the Greeks.” Are you saying that the Triune God is not the One Subject of these theologians?
Please know that I do not ask because I care to read more of you.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent (Our official catechism for over 400 years) stated that the death penalty, far from being a violation of the commandment is an act of paramount obedience to it.
Again, reversal is not development.
About intellectual laziness and doctrinal (not to be conflated with “theological progress”) “paradigm shifts,” let’s squint more closely at five points responding to your incomplete analysis:
FIRST, Benedict XVI acknowledged new thresholds of understanding, but rather than a “hermeneutics of discontinuity” (as in radical paradigm shifts), he offered “discontinuity within continuity.” What does this look like…
SECOND, one case in point is capital punishment. Pope John Paul II offered the prudential judgment that it’s use (different from its morality) should be very rare, if the purpose is to protect society. But he left intact the other part of the Catechism which recognizes retributive justice (not vengeance), and so he did not reverse former teaching.
What, then, does the more restrictive term “inadmissible” really mean? Perhaps the prudential judgment is tightened further, but like a parabolic curve does not cross the axis or line into doctrinal reversal. As a practical matter, what does one do with a criminal in solitary confinement who then murders a prison guard because there is no further punishment (as actually happened in Washington State)? Or with the statistical research that capital punishment is a measurable deterrent against homicides within an unprotected society (I lack the citation)?
THIRD, von Balthasar et al do not proclaim “universal salvation.” They propose, not incorrectly, that we can hope for universal salvation. The pope’s indiscretion is to float this notion and, as the primary guardian of faith and morals, soft-peddling the consequences of the flock condemning ourselves to the absence of God.
FOURTH, about “new data” and the “theory of knowledge,” the only real paradigm shift in our relationship to God Almighty is the gratuitous and definitive Incarnation at a particular time and place at the center of all human history.
It’s about faith in the Triune One and the fact of Jesus Christ, rather than provisional assent to any more natural knowledge—not the same as the paradigmatic natural sciences. Yes, our understanding is never exhaustive but, with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, neither is it contradictory. And, this is the path outlined by Cardinal Newman in the “Development [not self-abrogation] of Christian Doctrine.” And, by the Documents of the Second Vatican Council:
“The Christian dispensation, therefore, as the new and definitive [!] covenant, will never pass away, and we now await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of the Lord Jesus Christ (cf 1 Tim 6:14, Tit. 2:13)” (Dei Verbum, n.4).
FIFTH, the obfuscation incrementally nursed by Pope Francis is not the marketing of a paradigm shift in formal teaching, but rather the wedge driven between (reaffirmed) formal teaching and enabled and divergent pastoral practice. A duplicity that the Magisterium of the perennial Catholic Church earlier anticipated with this (ignored) clarification:
“A separation [wedge], or even an opposition, is thus established in some cases between the teaching of the precept, which is valid and general, and the norm of the individual conscience, which would in fact make the final DECISION [no longer a ‘moral JUDGMENT’!] about what is good and what is evil. On this basis, an attempt is made to legitimize so-called ‘pastoral’ solutions [!] contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium, and to justify a ‘creative’ hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept [‘Thou shalt not….’]” (Veritatis Splendor, 1993, n. 56, CAPS added).
Reply to Peter D. Beaulieu
“FIRST, Benedict XVI acknowledged …
Reply: Paradigm shift does not amount to discontinuity at all (perhaps “radical” does), nor does a paradigm shift imply contradiction. But a paradigm shift might allow one to see that a certain “ordinary teaching” is inconsistent with a principle (such as a Catholic moral principle or a principle of the gospel developed at a later period), and that change is consistent with Newman’s understanding of development.
“SECOND, one case in point is capital punishment. Pope John Paul II offered… What, then, does the more restrictive term “inadmissible” really mean?”
Reply: It is inadmissible because the moral principles that govern the individual are the same principles that govern the state, and one may not intentionally destroy human life for the sake of a good end. Many are finally coming to see that–Pope Francis is one of them.
“THIRD, von Balthasar et al do not proclaim “universal salvation.”… They propose, not incorrectly, that we can hope for universal salvation. The pope’s indiscretion is to float this notion and, as the primary guardian of faith and morals, soft-peddling the consequences of the flock condemning ourselves to the absence of God.”
Reply: Who are the “et al”? Certainly not those I listed. VonB was a soft universalist, while the others are hard universalists. Furthermore, the Pope did not commit an indiscretion. The Church prays in hope for “all men to be saved” and that “no one should be lost” (CCC §1821, §1058). That prayer is an expression of her hope, and so what the Holy Father hopes for is congruent with the Church.
“FOURTH, about “new data” and the “theory of knowledge,” the only real paradigm shift… It’s about faith in the Triune One and the fact of Jesus Christ, rather than provisional assent to any more natural knowledge—not the same as the paradigmatic natural sciences. Yes, our understanding is never exhaustive but, with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, neither is it contradictory. And, this is the path outlined by Cardinal Newman in the “Development [not self-abrogation] of Christian Doctrine.” …
Reply: I think you need quite a bit more of a background in the theory of knowledge. Moreover, it’s about drawing out the implications of a principle that has always been there, but earlier missed, and recently discovered as a result of new developments in biblical studies. Or, perhaps not so much missed, but a lack of appreciation for the full implications of that principle. New theological data goes a long way in helping us understand the gospel and its implications more fully. The contradiction is not with the principle, but an outdated theological frame of mind (Council of Florence is a good case in point, “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church”).
“FIFTH, the obfuscation incrementally nursed by Pope Francis…”
Reply: You are implying that the Holy Father is devious? Trying to mislead the entire Church? I’d like to say something to you that is as judgmental as what you just said about the Holy Father, but if I do, this comment will probably not get posted, so I’ll refrain.
I thought the principle was that “one may not intentionally destroy innocent human life”.
Although no one is specifically named, the Bible clearly teaches that there are damned people in hell. And chapter 25 of St. Matthew’s Gospel is clear that there will be a separation of the sheep from the goats, with the goats, who Christ calls “cursed,” going “into everlasting fire.”
If that chapter does not refer to people going to hell, then neither can it refer to anyone going to Heaven, as Christ uses the exact same wording to describe the fate of both sheep and goats: “everlasting.”
It is a misuse of the catechism to quote only a portion and ignore what it states in other sections, in this case, quite close in proximity, for it says in 1060 that “the JUST will reign with Christ.” Thus, it is the teaching of the Church that only “the just” will enter Heaven, that is, only those who die in a state of God’s friendship.
What so-called “universalists” are really doing is denying the existence of free will. They are denying that a person can choose against God and maintain that choice to the very end of his/her life.
If every single person ends up being just, then there can be no sanctions in this life for evil conduct. In fact, the very concept of “evil” would disappear, as the end result for those who do good and those who do evil would be the same: eternal salvation.
If all men are saved, there is no reason for anyone to prevent another person from being robbed, raped, and murdered in broad daylight. What would be wrong with what the members of Hamas did to Israeli citizens if such members will all be saved anyway?
I recommend the book “The End of the Present World and the Mysteries of the Future Life.” St. Therese of Lisieux stated, “Reading this book was one of the greatest graces of my life.”
“SECOND, one case in point is capital punishment. Pope John Paul II offered the prudential judgment that it’s use (different from its morality) should be very rare, if the purpose is to protect society. But he left intact the other part of the Catechism which recognizes retributive justice (not vengeance), and so he did not reverse former teaching.”
RESPONSE: Francis has not “reversed” former teaching either. He’s advanced/restored it.
See Matt 5:21-42 in which Jesus encourages people to “take it to the next level” on multiple topics. As James 2:13 notes, “Mercy triumph over justice.”
TRUE mercy is not an invitation to relativism. It’s an advancement in character. How much strength does it take to walk up to someone who has killed your loved one and to try to kill them? None. How much strength does it take to walk up to them, look them straight in the eyes and say, “I forgive you…”? (Not forgive as in “Its all good. No need for prison time, go free.” Forgive as in let go of the hatred and give the situation wholly to God.)
Also duly note Matt 19 in which Jesus is asked point blank if its ok to divorce one’s wife. Note his answer in verses 8 and 9: “Jesus replied, ‘Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery’.”
What was God’s original plan regarding the death penalty? Gen 4:15, “And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.” It was to exclude it. He didnt want it. But because of man’s hardness of heart, He “backed” it for a season. That season has now ended, according to the magisterium.
“As a practical matter, what does one do with a criminal in solitary confinement who then murders a prison guard because there is no further punishment (as actually happened in Washington State)?”
RESPONSE: You take better precautions against the possibility.
“Or with the statistical research that capital punishment is a measurable deterrent against homicides within an unprotected society (I lack the citation)?”
RESPONSE: Killing gay people is, very likely, a measurable deterrent to homosexual activity. But if you’re Catholic, you dont back “conservative” ideas like that, you stick with Catholic teaching.
What you say about the Christian goodness of forgiving someone who killed your loved one is true, but what if you come upon them in the act of attempted murder, is it wrong to use deadly force to stop them?
If you HAVE to, no. And that’s precisely the point here. IF you have to. And we dont. When we apply capital punishment, we’re methodically premeditating someone’s voluntary execution, rather than having to cause it in the spur of the moment because we have no other choice.
Greg C it is only one example among others; and 1) you can not overturn it, 2) your basis of distinction does not negate the principles, 3) you are wholesale ruling out other examples as if the real world operates like that.
Boy are you in trouble.
Well said!
“…the Holy Father Pope Francis (not Bergolio) pointed out…”
Bergoglio is the man’s legal name. He who lives in the world surely knows the world and its ways. (The man’s legal name is Bergoglio, not Bergolio).
Further, what dogma or doctrine requires we refer to the pope as “Holy Father”? Catholics are free to use that title, but if they do so, it is because the OFFICE WHICH THE MAN HOLDS IS HOLY. The man Bergoglio, the man who chose the name Francis as the name during his pontificate, is far from holy.
Francis has shown his office more dishonor than we choose not to use a certain title for the man. If your bubble gets busted by some who fail to not use your preferred term for the pontiff, write him. Maybe he’ll write back and empathize.
Two principles isolated by Fr Weinandy capsulize the efficacy of Newman’s approach to doctrinal development rather than the error of paradigmatic change. The Need for an Infallible Authority, the second Chronic Vigor.
However we may assess authentic teaching and development the nuances frequently make it difficult to firmly determine. A divinely instituted measure is the Chair of Peter exclusively when formally pronounced to the Church. Secondly, doctrinal development is not to be taken as solving a pastoral difficulty, rather the elucidation of a mystery, the mystery remaining incomprehensible for further understanding. So far the trend of the current pontificate is to offer pastoral solutions to perennial moral doctrine by simple contradiction supported by mitigation of doctrinal permanence.
Additionally we can add the authenticity or lack thereof regarding proposed doctrine such as communion for divorced and remarried outside the Church in letter exchange form such as those between His Holiness and the Argentine bishops entered into the AAS to which the pontiff gives an oblique response that can be interpreted for or against. Or the Declaration FS which proposes a dual doctrine of blessing and approbation of same sex relations known in psychology as a double blind. Perhaps we may call this category duplicity.
I think the term in psychology is Double Bind , not blind.
Thanks. A double bind is when two participants in testing receive conflicting messages. A double blind is when two participants and the examiner do not know who is being tested. Actually, you’re correct since I was referring to the double bind in which two persons receive conflicting messages, such as a proposition that can have a conflicting or double meaning.
Father Weinandi acknowledges, in his own wording, that “[a]lthough the present pontiff himself has not overtly contradicted the traditional magisterial teaching regarding faith and morals, he has allowed others – regional and universal synods, priests, bishops, even cardinals – to propose teachings that blatantly contravene what the Church has perennially taught” and that “he has befriended and supported those who promote notions that are contrary to the faith” and “has met with them whereby he encourages them and offers support for their dubious ministries, ministries that advocate homosexuality, transgenderism, contraception, and abortion” and that “Newman would be appalled and scandalized at such pontifical behavior.”
So, should we trust the decisions and teachings and actions of a person who engages in such appalling and scandalous pontifical behavior? Should we trust him to lead us on our journey to the Kingdom of God? Is such a person likely to adhere to the Newman principles set forth in the article?
This pontificate promulgates pastoral heresy. It uses Petrine obedience to promote disobedience to doctrine in practice, sidestepping orthodoxy to enable heteropraxy.
What these bishops, priests, etc. want is not a development and strengthening of an existing limb of the body of Christ, but an amputation.
Theology is merely a theory/explanation of why God materialize all what the theologian (that is, anyone) knows. Considering the plethero of theologies that cannot explain all the knowledge to their own satisfaction reveals how skewed their concept of God. Instead of further improving their fundamental axiom, that is progressing from their pet truth to the absolute Truth, that God alone exist and everything else are His live works, they prefer to ignore inconvenient knowledge only to remain in heresy, in original sin, ending up proposing another idol for sinners and dying. So the pre-requisite to devolope the catholic theology is to get the Hope from God of their own justification (from death), that is Faith, the proof that God found the person eligible to be disclosed the Truth without hurting his/her original freedom He bestowed of living up as if a god,(preferably for ever).
Time for a dash of humor to ease the conflicted soul. Italian emigres, political or otherwise, found a home in Argentina and took to the Tango, adding their own sense of flair, Ástor Piazzolla, Aníbal Troilo, Pedro Maffia, Carlos Marcucci among them. American Rudolf Valentino seemed to have captured America with that tango version.
Pope Francis biographer Austen Ivereigh mentions that the young Great Reformer Jorge Bergoglio was a Buenos Aires tango aficionado. A man adept at steps charming, aggressive, elusive, side steps for the less imaginative baffling. Now is it too far a stretch to suspect that Jorge shrewdly brought that talent to Rome?
Sounds logical
Fascinating! This makes me want to read Newman himself.
“Traditionally, doctrinal development was understood to be an authentic growth in the Church’s understanding and articulation of what had always been believed and taught.
John Henry Cardinal Newman was one of the first to offer this understanding of authentic doctrinal development.” I am only just beginning to read this article. Is its author claiming that no one before the 19th century ever explicitly expressed this understanding ? If this is the case, it seems extraordinary. Perhaps before then no one ever offered up an alternative to the traditional understanding of doctrinal development; but did not the Protestants? It is surprising to learn that the Counter-Reformers never offered “this understanding of authentic doctrinal development”.
It is important to note that Pope Benedict XV1 did no resign the office of the MUNUS because the office of the MUNUSi”is FOREVER”.
We can know through both Faith and Reason that if this essay is grounded in Truth than Jorge Bergoglio stands in contradiction.
This means that either the election of a heretic to The Papacy is invalid or we are all heretics now.
Thank you Fr. Weinandy, I thoroughly enjoyed this article, the equivalent of a complete most uplifting religious book. I know, I could get frowned upon for speaking about “religious” in that way or at all; but then I shared the truth of it. This is how I am inspired.
Our Lord had so much compassion and mercy on every kind of sinner. What He didn’t do with them is use them for ministerial positions for which they weren’t fit. Further, nowhere did he give them a prominence that replaced the conversion to which He was calling them. Moreover He never tried to turn them into other people’s darlings. Under Him they remained subject to the truth of His message or Good News; they had their dignity respected; and they had the light of knowing that no-one was to exaggerate their importance or measure beyond where the Lord is.
They object – that Judas wasn’t fit. But the mystery is that he was indeed fit, he just went along destroying his gifts in his own pattern. And still he had the benefit of how our Lord treated with Him. How naive we are to think that people will only merely fall away from Church going; for it is the case that they will be positively discouraged from some within, who make scandal, that they do not belong.
Some 25 to 30 years after the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the Jerusalem community was in straits about how to handle the rules being imposed in the Temple. I suggest to you they had lost their way, they were in fear. It took Paul to have to enter in and face off on the situation for them. Let us be humble. Let us eschew supposing we can achieve anything by being a more domestic Church. And after all it’s no longer the home of our parents. Let us not fall for false humility, or be tricked.
If you say, “It is now possible for the Church to allow a legalized homosexual civil union on the grounds that we can understand it as similar to legalizing common law marriage so long as we make the reservation that it is not about marriage”; that would not be a paradigm of anything, it’s just stupid and can also amount to rebellion against nature and against hope. Proposing to have it seen as an “elevated move in Divine Mercy” would make it more stupid; but as rebellion it would indeed be a kind of “shift”, of self-separation from both Church and reason.
How could anyone let alone a Pope conceive that such a propounding offered in public could be a role for the Church?
“How could anyone let alone a Pope conceive that such a propounding offered in public could be a role for the Church?”
One could if one desired to deny The Deposit Of Faith in order to be a schismatic leader of a counterfeit church.
‘His honour rooted in dishonour stood, And faith unfaithful kept him falsely true.”
The Ministerial Office of The Papacy cannot serve in opposition to The Office Of The MUNUS, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost. One can know through Faith and reason that The Office Of The MUNUS is “forever”.
“For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the Revelation, the Deposit of Faith, delivered through the Apostles. ”
“The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”[vii]
Jorge Bergoglio, having defected from The Catholic Faith as a cardinal, by claiming that sin done in a “private “ relationship is not sin, cannot have possibly been canonically elected to The Papacy. Every cardinal who was aware that Jorge Bergoglio had defected from The Catholic Faith, but , with this knowledge, voted for him to be elected to The Papacy, thus denying The Deposit Of Faith, ipso facto defected from The Catholic Faith.
“Canon 188 §4 states that among the actions which automatically (ipso facto) cause any cleric to lose his office, even without any declaration on the part of a superior, is that of “defect[ing] publicly from the Catholic faith” (” A fide catholica publice defecerit“).
https://blog.messainlatino.it/2024/06/interview-with-prof-andrea-grillo-on.html
H/T Brother Bognolo ( reference is not approval of all that is on his website)
It s important to note, in regards to “the relevance and reality of the development of doctrine today”, all development of doctrine is consistent with The Deposit Of Faith, or it is simply not Catholic Doctrine.
Today, the reality is, those who desire to deny that God, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, Through The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque), Is The Author Of Love, Of Life, And Of Marriage, and thus The Author of our inherent unalienable Right to Life, Liberty, And To The Pursuit of Happiness, because they desire to render onto Caesar or themselves, what Has Always and Will Always always belong to God, are attempting to create a counterfeit church to subsist within The One Body Of Christ, which is simply not possible, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, and the fact that “it s not possible to have Sacramental Communion without Ecclesiastical Communion” due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, for it Is “Through Him, With Him, And In Him, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque), that Holy Mother Church exists.
Pray that the Faithful Cardinals and Bishops will call for a Council to elect a valid Pope so that a valid Pope can consecrate Russia to Our Blessed Mother’s Immaculate Heart, in union with all Faithful Bishops and Cardinals, exactly as Our Blessed Mother requested, in order to restore Peace in Christ’s Church.
“As The Church goes, so goes The World.”
By refusing to affirm a counterfeit magisterium that claims the accommodation of pornographic acts is “A Development of Doctrine” consistent with Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and The Teaching Of The Magisterium grounded in Sacred Tradition, and Sacred Scripture, The Deposit Of Faith that Christ Has Entrusted To His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, I will remain in communion with The Magisterium and thus those Catholics in communion with Christ And His Church. I never was and never will be in communion with the counterfeit magisterium, and their counterfeit pope, who is not in communion with Christ and His Church.
“Canon 188 §4 states that among the actions which automatically (ipso facto) cause any cleric to lose his office, even without any declaration on the part of a superior, is that of “defect[ing] publicly from the Catholic faith”
Canon 750 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines. 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.[new]
Why then, do so many clerics allow this defection from The Catholic Faith to continue?
It is both a lack of Love and a deficiency of Faith, that has led to the failure to apply “ The Charitable Anathema “.
“Penance, Penance, Penance” At the heart of Liberty Is Christ, “4For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5Have moreover tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come…”, to not believe that Christ’s Sacrifice On The Cross will lead us to Salvation, but we must desire forgiveness for our sins, and accept Salvational Love, God’s Gift Of Grace And Mercy; believe in The Power And The Glory Of Salvation Love, and rejoice in the fact that No Greater Love Is There Than This, To Desire Salvation For One’s Beloved. “Hail The Cross, Our Only Hope.” “Blessed are they who are Called to The Marriage Supper Of The Lamb.” “For where your treasure is there will your heart be also.” “Behold your Mother.” – Christ On The Cross
We read: ““Canon 188 §4 states that among the actions which automatically (ipso facto) cause any cleric to lose his office, even without any declaration on the part of a superior, is that of “defect[ing] publicly from the Catholic faith.”
The ambiguity of the moment is whether enabling an informal church-within-the-Church, while also affirming formal doctrine, constitutes an actual “public defection” from the Catholic faith. Clever for sure, a betrayal but not a defection…
One is REMINDED of the “millet” system under the Ottoman Empire (tolerated niches for various non-Muslim religious groups), and the more generic “dhimmi” system under more general Islam (tolerance in exchange for annual payments in lieu of conversion). To what extent are these cosmopolitan versions of Islam being mimicked as a pragmatic redefinition of what “unity” means for the Catholic Church?
All the while seeming to sidestep a public defection from the Magisterium? Not quite a “doctrinal” denial, but a “pastoral” exemption for the infiltrated homosexual subculture? About which, again, ST. JOHN PAUL II had this to say in reaffirmation of moral absolutes, in what is now a fully explicit part of the Magisterium:
“A separation, or even an opposition, is thus established in some cases between the teaching of the precept [!], which is valid and general, and the norm of the individual conscience, which would in fact make the final decision [no longer a ‘moral judgment’] about what is good and what is evil. On this basis, an attempt is made to legitimize so-called ‘pastoral’ solutions contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium [!], and to justify a ‘creative’ hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept [thou shalt not….]” (Veritatis Splendor, 1993, n. 56).
As CARDINAL MULLER concluded about the capstone Fiducia Supplicans—couched in 5,000 words so as to not yet be a public heresy, but only leading to heresy: https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2024/02/does-fiducia-supplicans-affirm-heresy
An insidious hand overplayed by the unilateral Cardinal Fernandez. And, formally rejected by much of the universal Church: all of continental Africa, Poland, Hungary, Netherlands, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Peru, parts of Argentina, France and Spain, and by the Orthodox Churches.
You can only be lead into heresy by heresy.
J.M.J.
It is important to also note that, in regards to “The Sacramental Nature of Authority and the Limits of Synodality”, the argument regarding “submission to The Supreme Pontiff, is null and void in regards to Jorge Bergoglio, as he, himself, defected from The Catholic Faith prior to his election to The Papacy, so as of this moment, while The Office Of The MUNUS remains intact, through The Deposit Of Faith Christ Entrusted To His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, The Ministerial Office is currently vacant.
Canon 751 of the Code of Canon Law states that schism is “the refusal of submission to the supreme pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” Canon 1364 stipulates that the penalty for this crime is excommunication “latae sententiae,” i.e., automatically upon the commission of the offense.” Furthermore, “Canon 188 §4 states that among the actions which automatically (ipso facto) cause any cleric to lose his office, even without any declaration on the part of a superior, is that of “defect[ing] publicly from the Catholic faith” (” A fide catholica publice defecerit“).
Jorge Bergoglio’s “refusal of submission to the supreme pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him“, was evident, prior to his election to the Papacy, when his heresy was manifested and made public ,in his book, On Heaven And Earth, on page 117, when he stated, in regards to same sex relationships and thus same sex sexual acts, “If there is a union of a private nature, there is neither a third party, nor is society affected. Now, if the union is given the category of marriage, there could be children affected. Every person needs a male father and a female mother that can help shape their identity.” – Jorge Bergoglio, denying The Sanctity of the marital act within The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and the fact that God, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, Through The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, Is The Author Of Love, Of Life, And Of Marriage, while denying sin done in private is sin, and claiming that we are not Called To Be Temples Of The Holy Ghost in private and in public, and according to Jorge Bergoglio , we can thus simply dismiss our Call to Holiness in relationships that are of a private nature, which every Faithful Catholic affirms is a lie from the start, for it denies the very essence of Love, which serves for The Common Good.
From The Catechism Of The Catholic Church: 1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.”121 Sin is an offense against God: “Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight.”122 Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become “like gods,”123 knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus “love of oneself even to contempt of God.”124 In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.125“.
You cannot be in Communion with Christ, while denying “The Sacramental Nature of Authority and the Limits of Synodality”, which is why we can know through both Faith and reason that declaring the election of Jorge Bergoglio to be invalid is, in essence, a defense of The Papacy and The Unity of The Holy Ghost (Filioque). “For The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the Revelation, the Deposit of Faith, delivered through the Apostles.”
“It is not possible to have Sacramental Communion without Ecclesial Communion, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost”, (Filioque), For It Is” Through Christ, With Christ, And In Christ, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost” (Filioque) that Holy Mother Church, outside of which, there is no Salvation, due to The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque) exists.
The vote of every cardinal who was aware that prior to his election to the Papacy , Jorge Bergoglio had defected from The Catholic Faith, with full knowledge of his heresy, has ipso facto separated himself from Christ and His Church, and thus has defected from The Catholic Church.
Dear Blessed Mother Mary, Mirror of Justice , Untier Of Knots, And Destroyer Of All Heresy, Who Through Your Fiat, Affirmed The Filioque, and thus the fact that There Is Only One Son Of God, One Word Of God Made Flesh, One Lamb Of God Who Can Taketh Away The Sins Of The World, Our Only Savior, Jesus The Christ, thus there can only be, One Spirit Of Perfect Complementary Love Between The Father And The Son, Who Must Proceed From Both The Father And The Son, In The Ordered Communion Of Perfect Complementary Love, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity (Filioque), hear our Prayer that your Immaculate Heart Will Triumph soon for the sake of Christ, His Church, all who will come to believe, and all our beloved prodigal sons and daughters, who, hopefully, will return to The One Body Of Christ, which exists From The Father, Through, With, And In His Only Son, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque) Amen. 🙏💕🌹