They Will Use Newman for Their Heresy

Unfortunately, Newman talked of doctrinal "development", which is quite true, but the heretics use it to mean something entirely different from what St John Henry Newman intended.

From One Peter Five

By Timothy Flanders, MA

They put a heretical monkey next to a man and say “this is a development.”

I got back from a 12-day retreat to read the happy news that the Holy Father has confirmed the plans to proclaim St. John Henry Newman a Doctor of the Church. I’ve never read much Newman myself, but he seems to be universally respected by all Catholic men of letters… but with a dark side. But let me return to that in a moment.

The Apostasy of Albion

First, even though I haven’t read much from Newman, we can already see the immense significance of this news in the history of the Church. In many ways the whole crux of the Protestant revolt has been the downfall of Albion, i.e. Catholic Britain, whose totalitarian police state, led by the wicked, anti-Mary Witch-Queen Elizabeth I, paved the way for all the evils of our day – from the anti-Catholic Whig History of “Great” Britain’s Empire and its Ugly Revolution of 1688 to the anti-Catholic Manifest Destiny of the Anglo-American Empire promoting the errors of Russia in our own day.[1]

Thus one of the greatest saints of modern times, St. Paul of the Cross (1694-1775), offered his communions for some fifty years for the conversion of England.

His prayers were heard by God.

The sons of St. Paul of the Cross – the Passionists – went to England and received the penance of the Anglican heretics who were, in the 19th century, falling on their knees before Rome in great numbers (a movement known as the “Oxford Movement”).

And the greatest of these penitent heretics was St. John Henry Newman.

A penitent heretic is transformed into a cardinal, by God’s grace

So now this man – the first fruits of penitent Albion – will be a doctor of the Church. The prayers of St. Paul of the Cross are bearing greater and greater fruit! As the old Faith of our Fathers song petitions, “May England [and all her daughters] may soon be free [of heresy] by Mary’s prayers!”

The Neo-Modernist Use and Abuse of Newman

But we know why the heretics are promoting this news. We’ve seen them do it before. They convinced the Holy Father to issue Fiducia Supplicans and then called it a “development” and wrongly cited Newman – with all their other “developments.”

This brings up the other factor that Newman is famous for: the phrase “development of doctrine.” (I don’t know if he came up with that English phrase or not.)

I haven’t studied Newman’s texts thoroughly – the best print edition seems to be published by Word on Fire, in fact – but his treatise An Essay on the Development of Doctrine – published before his conversion – makes a great attempt to define the orthodox concept of “development” against the Modernist concept of “evolution.”

Evolution = Heretical Modernism

“Evolution” is simple: you put a monkey here and a man there. The only process that could make one into the other is what Calvin & Hobbes called “Transmogrification.” It’s the changing of one thing into the substance of another thing which is a contradiction of the first.

Here’s an example of evolution:

1. Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed: for man was made to the image of God (Gen. ix. 6)
2. The death penalty is intrinsically evil – it is always evil, and always has been, in every circumstance

These two statements contradict each other. The only way for one to become another is by means of evolution. Here’s another example that the Modernists promote:

1. Jesus did not rise from the dead
2. Jesus did rise from the dead

The Modernists which Newman (and later Pope Pius X) condemned said that in the early Church Jesus actually did not rise from the dead, but after decades and centuries, the “pious feelings” about Jesus from the faithful “evolved” into the belief that he did rise from the dead.

Development = Orthodoxy

Now let’s see what Newman would say about the death penalty, using the teaching of Pope St. John Paul II:

1. Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed: for man was made to the image of God (Gen. ix. 6)
2. In our post-war epoch, where the situation has changed dramatically from former times, it safeguards the image of God in man better to spare the lives of criminals rather than to put them to death, even though in former times with different circumstances capital punishment was right and just, as Genesis proclaims.

Agree or disagree with the second statement (summarising the teaching of Papa Wojtyła) the second statement is not contradictory to the first. Instead, it is a “development” which maintains the inner logos contained in the first statement.

Hence the Magisterial texts of Vatican I contained this anathema:

If anyone shall assert it to be possible that sometimes, according to the progress of knowledge [scientia], a sense [sensus]is to be given to doctrines propounded by the Church different from that which the Church has understood and understands; let him be anathema. (Vatican I, Dei Filius)

The key term here is “sensus.” In the second example of “development,” the sense of justice contained in Genesis is maintained: it is about respecting the image of God in man in both cases. That’s why when Pope St. Pius X imposed his Oath Against Modernism (which some theologians maintain is infallible), he included this key phrase “same sense.” Quoting from the Oath:

I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same sense and always in the same knowledge (eodem sensu eademque semper sententia). Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously.

And this is why Pope St. John Paul II, in his fight with the Neo-Modernists, maintained this key phrase in Veritatis Splendor in his discussion of development vs. evolution:   

Certainly there is a need to seek out and to discover the most adequate formulation for universal and permanent moral norms in the light of different cultural contexts, a formulation most capable of ceaselessly expressing their historical relevance, of making them understood and of authentically interpreting their truth. This truth of the moral law — like that of the “deposit of faith” — unfolds down the centuries: the norms expressing that truth remain valid in their substance, but must be specified and determined “eodem sensu eademque sententia” in the light of historical circumstances by the Church’s Magisterium, whose decision is preceded and accompanied by the work of interpretation and formulation characteristic of the reason of individual believers and of theological reflection (Veritatis Splendor, 53).1

So what do the Neo-Modernists do in our day? They put a heretical monkey next to a man and say “this is a development.”

“And now there’s another thing you got to learn,” said the ape. “I hear some of you are saying that I’m an ape. Well I’m not. I’m a man. If I look like an ape, that’s because I’m so very old: hundreds and hundreds of years old. And it’s because I’m so old that I’m so wise. And it’s because I’m so wise that I’m the only one Aslan is ever going to speak to. He can’t be bothered talking to a lot of stupid animals. He’ll tell me what you’ve got to do, and I’ll tell the rest of you. And take my advice and see that you do it and double quick time, for He doesn’t mean to stand any nonsense.”[2]

I’m a man! Don’t ask questions!

So that’s what they’re going to do to fool us “stupid animals.” Tell us that a monkey is a man and call it “development” and say “well, Cardinal Newman is a doctor of the Church, SO THERE!” If you ask questions, this is what they’ll say:

“Now don’t you start arguing,” said the ape, “for it’s a thing I won’t stand. I’m a man: you’re only a fat, stupid old bear. What do you know about freedom? You think freedom means doing what you like. Well, you’re wrong. That isn’t true freedom. True freedom means doing what I tell you.”[3]

This is why I can understand the concern of my friend, Chris Jackson, in the wickedness of the Neo-Modernists in misusing Newman. But I also support the effort of my other friend, Murray Rundus, to have a formal debate about Newman and discuss it in detail.

Even though development of doctrine is true, there are many metaphysical nuances that have not been magisterially clarified. Here at OnePeterFive we aim to unite the clans to rebuild Christendom, so we support a formal debate between Mr. Jackson and Mr. Rundus to try to delve deeper into these crucial issues, since the Neo-Modernists will be using Newman more and more in the coming days.

St. John Henry Newman, pray for us!

Jesus is King!