Thoughts from Mark "Hat" Rackley

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

• Romans 3:23

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

• Romans 6:23

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

• Hebrews 13:8

“Having ascertained that the Roman Catholic Church is the closest approximation to the early Church, Newman needs to explain the changes. He does not accept the traditional claim that the Roman Catholic Church is ‘always the same’, never changing. He does not overcome history by dogmatic assertions of changelessness, as in the papal bull *Ineffabilis Deus. Instead he acknowledges change and seeks to explain it.
Changes came because doctrine develops. Such growth or development of doctrine is inevitable: the church grows in understanding over the ages; the unsystematic doctrine of the Bible needs to be ordered and arranged; there is the need to react to false teaching; new ages pose new questions which demand new answers. Change and development are inevitable. But not all change or development is healthy — there are cancerous growths. How can development be tested? …
“Also, an examination of some of the irreformable dogmas promulgated by the infallible church — such as the Virgin Mary’s immaculate conception and assumption (defined in Ineffabilis Deus and *Munificentissimus Deus) – suggests that the price to be paid for doctrinal uniformity is too high. Such dogmas show the need for all doctrine to be tested by the Bible — even at the expense of opening the doors to a variety of interpretations.
“Newman’s ideas met with a frosty reception in the ultra-dogmatic nineteenth—century Roman Catholic Church. It was his fellow ex-Evangelical, Henry Manning, who became Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster (although Newman was eventually made a cardinal in 1879). Manning was of a different temper to Newman. ‘The appeal to history is heresy and treason,’ he maintained. But Newman’s day was to come. If the ‘First Vatican Council, which defined papal infallibility, was Manning’s council, the *Second Vatican Council, which acknowledged development in doctrine, may be called Newman’s council. it has even been claimed, with tongue in cheek, that in the long run it was the Roman Catholic Church which was converted to Newman, not vice versa.”

• Tony Lane, A Concise History of Christian Thought

“We are not merely imperfect creatures who must be improved: we are, as Newman said, rebels who must lay down our arms.”

• C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain

I much prefer the Lewis quote.  It is clear and understandable.

John Henry Newman (1801-1890) was an English theologian, Anglican priest and later a Catholic priest and cardinal.  He was outspoken and controversial in his day.  He argued for a consistent definition of the basis for doctrine and discipline within the church.  When his voice was left unheard, he wrote Tract of the Times.  As a result, he and his followers were called Tractarians.

As he became known as a writer, he was very vociferous in his attacks on the Catholic church.  Once saying that when he visited Rome, Rome was wonderful, but the Roman Catholic Church was polytheistic, degrading and idolatrous.  He would later retract such comments, convert to Catholicism and become a priest.  Newman led the laity, encouraging them to speak in the town square.

When the First Vatican Council made the move toward the infallibility of the pope, including the birth of the virgin Mary to be without a sin nature, Newman was opposed.   As a result, Newman was not considered for a post as a cardinal until Pope Pius IX died.  When Pope Leo XIII became pope, some of Newman’s “friends” were either mute or did not like the idea, but he was made cardinal in spite of the objections.

Since most of this article, and all of the quote above, was written by the book’s author, I found it hard to understand Newman’s position on the decisions within the church during his day, but one thing not in the quote above was that the infallibility issue needed to be raised to consider that the pope is NOT to Jesus Christ as Jesus Christ is to the Old Testament.  In other words, the pope cannot elevate himself to be God.  The confusion over what was said, and who said it, is that when Newman knew he was stirring a hornet’s nest, he made his comments to his associates anonymously.

I used the Scriptures above as my personal view since this philosophical argument is rambling.  We have all sinned, all humans on earth, except for Jesus who was also 100% God.  Thus, other than Jesus, we are all changeable and fallible.  Considering others to be elevated to infallibility is tantamount to Newman’s earlier claims about the Catholic church, a form of polytheism.

As far as the Lewis quote, who quoted Newman, I agree.  We are sinners, thus we are rebels who must lay down our arms.  Maybe since Newman could not get the Anglican church to define the source of their doctrines and discipline, and he went to the Catholic church, he was, in a certain sense, laying down his arms.  But somehow, the fighter remains a fighter.

If you like these Tuesday morning essays about philosophy and other “heavy topics,” but you think you missed a few, you can use this LINK. I have set up a page off the home page for links to these Tuesday morning posts. I will continue to modify the page as I add more.

Soli Deo Gloria.  Only to God be the Glory.