Newman and “the Rambler Affair”

[Pacelli]

Unfortunately, this error, along with many others, will remain prevalent until the crisis ends and an undoubtedly true Pope judges each matter. The sheep are scattered -- just consider how many laymen are consulting theology manuals or excerpts therefrom with little to no training in philosophy or theology, without *any* oversight from Church authorities, engaging in controversy that ordinary laymen would never have been expected to dabble in during normal times, all in a good willed effort to make sense of the myriad complex issues posed by the crisis. And I say this not to castigate those who do this -- for I am among them, and it would seem to be a 'necessary evil,' so to speak, of our times -- but merely to underscore how bizzare and unhappy a situation we find ourselves in today.

Consequently, until the crisis is over, I think it's best to treat those who have fallen into such errors with unwavering patience, and be most reluctant to conclude pertinacity is present due to the large number of mitigating factors at play.

I agree with you as to the folks that are of good will just trying to make sense of all of this.  

There are some, however, that do know better, and use tactics like manipulating quotes, taking quotes out of context, using fallacious arguments, etc.,  to further an agenda not based on truth, but based on whatever idea they are pushing, and it is those people, that they need to be called out and exposed, as they are leading people astray into heresy, error, schism, and spiritual harm.

Fwiw, I have had friends, who were once good Catholics, who came across the writings and the videos of the Dimonds.  Two of them, once level headed men, both intelligent, who were interested in theology but not careful or critical thinkers, became like rabid dogs when I spoke with them, even shouting at me, all because I tried to calmly show them why the Dimond's teachings are wrong.   Anyway, both of these men gave up the sacraments, then became home-aloners, and now live sinful lives.  

So, we have to try to fight error, in whatever small way we can.  I know none of us are sent by God, as the Divinely commissioned hierarchy are, but we, as the unauthorized laity, are still unofficial witnesses to the Catholic Faith, so when see heresy or error, we must try to counter it to the best we can.  

These heresies and errors have practical effects as well, it's not all theoretical.  Catholics end up in many cases giving up the mass and maybe all sacraments or at least significantly decreased mass attendance, and to a lesser level, there are many social but still significant consequences to these errors:  as Catholics many times end up with divided families, loss of friends, loneliness, inability to find a spouse, etc., over these issues.   

Think about also, the more recent errors on the apostolic succession.  Practically speaking, logically where should this error bring sedevacantists?  If these men are the apostolic successors, then they are truly the commissioned rulers of the Church, and they not only can rule, but they must rule.  For those pushing these ideas, I don't think they are ready to see what that will actually look like.   You cannot separate yourself from the successors or the Apostles, and just choose another place to go to mass.  If these sedevacantist bishops are the successors of the apostles, and they are ruling over you, you must submit and obey them.  

Let's take this one step further, practically speaking, if these sedevacantist bishops are the only remaining hierarchy as some are now openly asserting, then they have the right of election of a Pope, if the Cardinals are gone, which is also being asserted.  If these ideas gain traction, you may very well see that happen, a papal election.  It's the logical end of the position.   Griff Ruby knows this, and has written a lengthy book advocating for this.   What you will see will be a Palma de Troya, part 2, with a full hierarchy, including a "pope," bishops and cardinals.   It will look the part, just like Palma de Troya, with men fully dressed in the attire of cardinals and bishops, and even a "pope," a full impressive looking hierarchy, but completely false.

The remaining Catholics who go to the SSPX or who are affiliated with Bishop Williamson's "resistance," and even many level headed sedevacantists will not submit to this false hierarchy or to the new false "Pope," and you will have a new undeclared schism, as Catholics will be cut off from each other even further.   

Some may argue that these consequences will not happen, and I hope that is correct, but my point is that logically once these men are believed to be the successors of the Apostles, then these consequences are natural, as they naturally flow from that error.   There is no obstacle to electing a pope, if we do indeed have successors of the Apostles alive and willing to meet to do this in the absence of the Cardinals.   

There are so many modern errors to fight that this gets overwhelming at times, Dimond-ism, Feeneyism, Home-Aloneism, NUCism, those denying that they must obey Popes in liturgical laws, those denying that they must obey a Pope in his moral teachings, those that want to redefine what a successor of the Apostle is, those that deny that the successors of the Apostles are living men who actually rule, those that deny that the apostolic succession must be uninterrupted, etc.   I am sure there are more, but these all come to mind.  

[John Lewis]

Apr 17, 2023 10:55:44 GMT -5 Pacelli said:

Apr 17, 2023 1:42:10 GMT -5 John Lewis said:

As much as I hate twitter, this is probably that is probably the place where this error needs to be opposed.

John,

I am not against using Twitter, and I hope that some may use that platform if they think good will come from it, but, at least for the most part, I will stay here on this forum.   What we really need to combat these modern errors is what we don't have at present, the lawfully commissioned shepherds who will defend the Faith.  Any action by unauthorized laymen, will only affect the margins, not much more, but I do what I do to try to combat the errors.  

In a way it’d be helpful if the SSPX combatted these errors rather than not engaging at all.

[sdwright]

Hello all.

My colleague has sent me the following comments for your interest.

Thanks

----

[Edited to add his further comment: In that very section Newman refers to hundreds of bishops across the world who remained Catholic.

Therefore from the context it is manifestly clear that he couldn't mean what it is alleged that he meant.]

In the paragraphs immediately following the words that have been accused of heresy Newman lists different groups of bishops including Catholics:

"A.D. 341. Council of Rome of fifty Bishops, attended by the exiles from Thrace, Syria, &c., by Athanasius, &c., in which Athanasius was pronounced innocent."

And

"A.D. 345. Council of the creed called Macrostich. This creed suppresses, as did the third, the word "substance." The eastern Bishops sent this to the Bishops of the West, who rejected it."

and

"The synod of Sardica, including Bishops from Italy, Gaul, Africa, Egypt, Cyprus, and Palestine, confirmed the act of the Roman council, and restored Athanasius and the other exiles to their sees."

and

"A.D. 361. The death of Constantius; the Catholic Bishops breathe again"

and

"St. Basil was Bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia through these years."

These are just some of the examples which make it clear that Newman did not in any way believe the hierarchy had failed.

The context makes it manifestly clear that he was speaking of certain parts of the world only.

[wenceslav]

Hi Sd,

Thanks for the info, appreciate it. I don’t doubt and I’ve said it multiple times that Cd. Newman was a good Catholic - this thread is not about critiquing Newman’s beliefs. But he inadvertently, perhaps by not thinking about it i.e. a slip of the pen, he published a phrase that any reader would assume that the body of bishops failed. That there was a “suspense in the Ecclesia docens”. He was asked to explain what he meant by the rector of the district’s seminary (who said at face value that was a heretical statement) and by his bishop who informed Rome. He did explain and his explanation was orthodox. There was also a sordid affair of his letter to Cardinal Wiseman being lost and not being left with the proper authorities in Rome but that’s neither here nor there.

I am sorry if I have confused anyone in this issue. I stated that it could have been because of his Anglican past or at least that’s what I meant. Thats my error and my speculation. His earlier editions of his book “ Arians of the 4th century” -when he was an Anglican- did not have the orthodox explanations of those questionable phrases. But that could be explained away in a way that leaves Newman’s reputation in tact.