9 October 2023

Saint John Henry Newman, and the dangers of Sugary Smiles

Today is the Solemnity of S John Henry Newman; I offer a word of caution.

When Amoris Laetitia emerged, it was followed by a News Conference compered by the Schoenborn of Vienna. When Diana Montagna asked the very sensible question ... whether this were not a change in doctrine ... the Graf flashed on that ghastly sugary smile which, he presumably thinks, makes him look charming, and told her that it was "Development" and that it was "all in Newman".

We may find ourselves hearing more of this kind of trickery: it needs to be nailed.

S John Henry wrote on The Development of Christian Doctrine while he was still an Anglican. He wanted to satisfy himself that the contemporary Roman Catholic Church really was identical with the Apostolic and 'primitive' Churches ... despite any superficial appearances to the contrary! In the course of writing, any doubts he had were resolved, and he sought admission into the One Fold of the Redeemer. In so doing, he left his essay unfinished. It still is.

Newman did NOT write that work so as to provide future papal regimes with a useful blueprint for changing doctrine.

His message was NOT: "Hey, all you future Heretical Holinesses in the Henceforth, you wanna change dogma? Here's a good wheeze: Just call it "Development"!!"


Liturgical Footnote:

I think a strict interpretation of the 2000 CDF liturgical regulations means that, when a newly canonised Saint is observed in the Old Rite, the Old Rite Communia should be used. But I suspect that most of us, very naturally, use at least the Collect from the propers authorised for S John Henry in the Novus Ordo.

In that Collect, S John Henry is called 'presbyterum'. But this is not in accordance with the conventions of the Usus Authenticus of the Roman Rite. To bring it into line with the customary usages, presbyterum needs to be changed to confessorem tuum..And, for stylistic reasons, the repetition of the adjective tuum in the next clause needs to go.


tradgardmastare said...

Well said sir!

Arthur Gallagher said...

When will people just admit that PF and his entourage are promoting heresy? When will bishops stop tendering their resignations when the suggested time comes? Where are the brave sermons that we hear from some priests that we should expect to hear from all priests? Why are people still putting money in the collection basket? Finally, I ask, why are there no groups of angry protesters bringing the truth home to PF and his minions? A large group of angry Romans refusing to let him leave his house would do a lot more good than trying to ignore his evil ways. And angry protests all over the Catholic world directed at his toady crew.
We are as cowed as the German people were during the Hitler regime- and with far less reason.
What we need now are men with the decisive spirit of a Newman, or dare I might say, of a Lefebvre, who are willing to stake everything against the errors sent by the evil one.
Mostly, we need men to give the home truth to George the Usurper- and let him know that we are not taking his patented brand of s*** anymore.

pdm said...

Yes, it is very odd how some people use Newman. What Newman offered was a series of retrospective tests of the catholicity of a Church; but many people treat them as if they were prospective recommendations. For example, he says that the true Church will be seen to have swallowed poison and survived—that is to say, inevitably the faithful of any one time will use some of the faddish concepts and ideas of their time, but the Church will manifest the capacity to take what is good and true in those concepts and ideas, without being undermined by what is bad in them. Yet some seem to take this as a recommendation that the Church *should* swallow as much poison as possible...

coradcorloquitur said...

The Modernists have nothing in common with the great Newman and everything with the original heretics of that diabolical movement---with Loisy, Tyrell, de Chardin and the rest of that nefarious company. Except that Vatican II (plus much blameworthy cowardice on the part of the orthodox) has emboldened them in truly dramatic ways. They are brazen, shameless, and proud of their mediocrity and ignorance. But they do know one thing: that Newman is not theirs; they only use him to deceive, comme d'habitude, the uninformed and the malformed. One does wonder, however, if Newman's philosophical restraint would have reached a limit in the present pontificate: after all, as humans we all have our limits, and his love of the Faith and of the truth I think would have overcome reticence regarding his assessment of Francis. Not so sure about dear Father Faber in this regard as he did seem to have a touch of papolatry---which in his day was not the dangerous anesthetic regarding papal malfeasance it has become in our times as popes were truly Catholic then.

coradcorloquitur said...

Hear, hear, Mr. Gallagher above! High time to organize, act boldly, and shed our fears and superstitions regarding that most noble, sacred institution---the papacy---now so shamefully abused and used for the opposite end of Christ's institution. I fear we at present do not have a lion for the Faith, a true father, like Marcel Lefebvre, but Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, Cardinal Mueller and others are coming unto their own! Let us set aside our pettiness, support them, travel for demonstrations when necessary, offer our daily sufferings (illnesses, financial woes, difficult relatives, even small pains or contretemps) for the welfare of our dearest Mother, Holy Church. Perhaps we can start a regular devotion of our choice (it can be short and simple, like one Pater, Gloria, and Ave) to the Five Most Precious Wounds---a very English, medieval kind of spirituality indeed---for this intention. But we must act!