"Obviously there could be no more effective way of reducing the teaching on the necessity of the Church for the attainment of eternal salvation to an empty formula than the explanation advanced by Newman [in "Letter to the Duke of Norfolk] in what are probably the least felicitous pages of all his published works. That explanation is certainly one of those reproved in the encyclical letter Humani generis."
(The Catholic Church and Salvation: In the Light of Recent Pronouncements by the Holy See, By Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, Member of the Pontifical Theological Academy, 1958, Page 126)
Francis apologist Mike Lewis of the Where Peter Is blog who is also an apologist for Communion for adulterers and pachamama worship has finally shown me how it appears some Francis traditionalists and conservative Catholics become first liberal Catholics, that is semi-Modernists, and finally full-blown Modernist heretics.
The answer appears to be that they reject Thomistic realism and it's principle of non-contradiction as applied to the infallible teachings of the Church.
Instead they believe in Cardinal John Henry Newman's speculations on "Development of Doctrine" as well as his nominalist philosophy which denies the principle of non-contradiction as more infallible than the actual infallible Church teachings against such teachings as Communion for adulterers, idolatry and others.
Most Francis Catholics don't have enough philosophical background or plain common sense to realize this is what they are doing.
But, seemingly some realize their nominalism even as they mask it in the religious language of GROWTH and DEVELOPMENT which apparently was condemned by the infallible Council of Vatican I.
Lewis explains Newman's nominalist thinking:
"Newman himself spoke of the need to understand that doctrine might not DEVELOP [my capitalization] in a way that we can anticipate or in a way that our preconceived notions are prepared to accept."
(Where Peter Is, "The shock of developing doctrine: A response to Fr. Dwight Longenecker, May 22, 2018)
Although, I respect Cardinal Newman as a historian for his chronicling of St. Athanasius as well as the Arian crisis and use his historical work as good history, it appears that there is a problem with his philosophy which make problematic his theological idea of development of doctrine.
According to two scholars, Newman's philosophy appears to be tinted with nominalism.
Cardinal Johannes Willebrands who took part in Vatican II said:
"Newman was in fact a convinced individualist. The individual always supersedes the universal, the individual is the only reality... This doctrine is at odds with the doctrine of Saint Thomas Aquinas and amounts to nominalism."
(So, What's New About Scholasticism? How Neo-Thomism Helped Shape the Twentieth Century," Last chapter, books.google.com)
Also, scholar Jay Newman wrote:
"When he tells us that common nouns stand for what is non-existing and speaks of the mind's gift 'of bringing before it abstractions and generalizations, which have no existence, no counterpart, out of it.' Newman is letting us know that he has rejected the metaphysical 'realism' of the scholastics in favor of the 'nominalism' of the British empiricist school."
(The Mental Philosophy of John Henry Newman, Page 40)
Nominalism according to Wikipedia is defined as the philosophy that there "is a concept in the mind, rather than a real entity [objective truth] existing independently of the mind."
In terms of truth and Catholic doctrine nominalism means Church teachings can change or GROW that is "DEVELOP," but in Newman's system the growth can't contradict the previous accepted doctrine, but THE BIG QUESTION IS how can one who rejects Thomism as well as realism by being a nominalist then seriously speak of contradiction.
Even more important, "Development of Doctrine" is a speculation that apparently contradicts the infallible teaching of Vatican I.
The important American theologian Fr. Joseph Fenton who did his doctoral dissertation under the great Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange and was a collaborator with Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani explained the problem with this speculation:
"The statement that our Catholic dogma or doctrine is the growth or the development of the seed planted by the Apostles would seem to be seriously objectionable. According to the Vatican Council [Vatican I] the Holy Father has been empowered to teach infallibly, NOT the GROWTH or the DEVELOPMENT [my capitalizations] of the primitive Christian teaching, but the 'revelation delivered through the Apostles, or deposit of Faith' itself."
(American Ecclesiological Review article, 1953)
It appears that the so-called "conservative" and "moderate" Francis Catholics like Lewis by thinking Newman's "Development of Doctrine" is infallible dogma when it is only speculation by someone who was tinted with the false philosophy of nominalism eventually become liberal Catholics and finally Modernist heretics by rejecting the Law of Non-contradiction and immutable eternal truth.
The great theologian Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange explained Modernism:
"One sees the danger of the new definition of truth, no longer the adequation of intellect and reality but the conformity of mind and life... Truth is no more immutable than man himself inasmuch as it is evolved with him... One understands why Puis X said of modernists: 'they pervert the eternal concept of truth."
(Archive.irg, Catholic Family News Reprint Series, "Where is the New Theology")
Moreover, Dante scholar and Editor in Chief of The Catholic Thing Robert Royal explained that Lewis and all Communion for adulterers Francis Catholics need God to "repeal the Law of Non-contradiction":
"Pope Francis... listens to... Cardinals Maradiaga, Marx and Kasper. The last in particular seems more and more incoherent and yet as he tries to explain precisely why marriage is indissoluble and yet those in a second sexual relationship - though not a marriage - may be absolved and return to receiving Communion. The only way that's possible is if God repeals the Law of Non-contradiction. I don't think that's on his to-do list."
(Fr. Z's Blog, "Good comments on Card. Burke and a serious translation error," November 10, 2014)
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
(The Catholic Church and Salvation: In the Light of Recent Pronouncements by the Holy See, By Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, Member of the Pontifical Theological Academy, 1958, Page 126)
Francis apologist Mike Lewis of the Where Peter Is blog who is also an apologist for Communion for adulterers and pachamama worship has finally shown me how it appears some Francis traditionalists and conservative Catholics become first liberal Catholics, that is semi-Modernists, and finally full-blown Modernist heretics.
The answer appears to be that they reject Thomistic realism and it's principle of non-contradiction as applied to the infallible teachings of the Church.
Instead they believe in Cardinal John Henry Newman's speculations on "Development of Doctrine" as well as his nominalist philosophy which denies the principle of non-contradiction as more infallible than the actual infallible Church teachings against such teachings as Communion for adulterers, idolatry and others.
Most Francis Catholics don't have enough philosophical background or plain common sense to realize this is what they are doing.
But, seemingly some realize their nominalism even as they mask it in the religious language of GROWTH and DEVELOPMENT which apparently was condemned by the infallible Council of Vatican I.
Lewis explains Newman's nominalist thinking:
"Newman himself spoke of the need to understand that doctrine might not DEVELOP [my capitalization] in a way that we can anticipate or in a way that our preconceived notions are prepared to accept."
(Where Peter Is, "The shock of developing doctrine: A response to Fr. Dwight Longenecker, May 22, 2018)
Although, I respect Cardinal Newman as a historian for his chronicling of St. Athanasius as well as the Arian crisis and use his historical work as good history, it appears that there is a problem with his philosophy which make problematic his theological idea of development of doctrine.
According to two scholars, Newman's philosophy appears to be tinted with nominalism.
Cardinal Johannes Willebrands who took part in Vatican II said:
"Newman was in fact a convinced individualist. The individual always supersedes the universal, the individual is the only reality... This doctrine is at odds with the doctrine of Saint Thomas Aquinas and amounts to nominalism."
(So, What's New About Scholasticism? How Neo-Thomism Helped Shape the Twentieth Century," Last chapter, books.google.com)
Also, scholar Jay Newman wrote:
"When he tells us that common nouns stand for what is non-existing and speaks of the mind's gift 'of bringing before it abstractions and generalizations, which have no existence, no counterpart, out of it.' Newman is letting us know that he has rejected the metaphysical 'realism' of the scholastics in favor of the 'nominalism' of the British empiricist school."
(The Mental Philosophy of John Henry Newman, Page 40)
Nominalism according to Wikipedia is defined as the philosophy that there "is a concept in the mind, rather than a real entity [objective truth] existing independently of the mind."
In terms of truth and Catholic doctrine nominalism means Church teachings can change or GROW that is "DEVELOP," but in Newman's system the growth can't contradict the previous accepted doctrine, but THE BIG QUESTION IS how can one who rejects Thomism as well as realism by being a nominalist then seriously speak of contradiction.
Even more important, "Development of Doctrine" is a speculation that apparently contradicts the infallible teaching of Vatican I.
The important American theologian Fr. Joseph Fenton who did his doctoral dissertation under the great Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange and was a collaborator with Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani explained the problem with this speculation:
"The statement that our Catholic dogma or doctrine is the growth or the development of the seed planted by the Apostles would seem to be seriously objectionable. According to the Vatican Council [Vatican I] the Holy Father has been empowered to teach infallibly, NOT the GROWTH or the DEVELOPMENT [my capitalizations] of the primitive Christian teaching, but the 'revelation delivered through the Apostles, or deposit of Faith' itself."
(American Ecclesiological Review article, 1953)
It appears that the so-called "conservative" and "moderate" Francis Catholics like Lewis by thinking Newman's "Development of Doctrine" is infallible dogma when it is only speculation by someone who was tinted with the false philosophy of nominalism eventually become liberal Catholics and finally Modernist heretics by rejecting the Law of Non-contradiction and immutable eternal truth.
The great theologian Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange explained Modernism:
"One sees the danger of the new definition of truth, no longer the adequation of intellect and reality but the conformity of mind and life... Truth is no more immutable than man himself inasmuch as it is evolved with him... One understands why Puis X said of modernists: 'they pervert the eternal concept of truth."
(Archive.irg, Catholic Family News Reprint Series, "Where is the New Theology")
Moreover, Dante scholar and Editor in Chief of The Catholic Thing Robert Royal explained that Lewis and all Communion for adulterers Francis Catholics need God to "repeal the Law of Non-contradiction":
"Pope Francis... listens to... Cardinals Maradiaga, Marx and Kasper. The last in particular seems more and more incoherent and yet as he tries to explain precisely why marriage is indissoluble and yet those in a second sexual relationship - though not a marriage - may be absolved and return to receiving Communion. The only way that's possible is if God repeals the Law of Non-contradiction. I don't think that's on his to-do list."
(Fr. Z's Blog, "Good comments on Card. Burke and a serious translation error," November 10, 2014)
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Comments