Posts tagged Cardinal Newman
God Giveth the Increase
Mar 5th
The following piece appears on the web site of the London Oratory. The emphases are mine.
While the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus provides our separated communities with the means to achieve corporate reunion with the Universal Church, each individual Anglican — bishop, priest, deacon, religious, and layman — is also called to personal conversion. It is incumbent upon us to respect the fact that, for any number of contingent human reasons, it is often difficult to pursue the right path. Our Anglican people — Forward in Faith, TAC, and others — are embarking upon this journey from different points of departure. With God’s grace, may they all find themselves ultimately at the same destination.
* * *
Anglicanorum Coetibus
Thou art Peter and on this rock I will build my Church.
On 22nd February we celebrate the feast of the Chair of St.Peter. This feastday is our opportunity to thank God again for the primacy of the Pope as chief shepherd of Christ’s flock. It is our opportunity to affirm our belief in the full, supreme, universal and immediate jurisdiction of His Holiness the Pope over each and every single one of the faithful. Christ Himself is the Head of the Church, and He chose St.Peter and his successors to share and mediate that headship and its primacy, as servant of the servants of God.
We are told that a number of Anglicans are in the process of considering their position in the light of the Holy Father’s extraordinarily generous offer to them in his recent Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus, which makes canonical provision for personal ordinariates for Anglicans who leave the Church of England and enter into full communion with the Catholic Church. It has also been said that a number of them are hoping to make a decision by the feast of the Chair of St.Peter this year. We must pray for the Holy Spirit to guide them in their response to the Holy Father. We should remember that Pope Benedict’s Apostolic Constitution is itself a response to numerous and repeated petitions made to the Holy See by various Anglican groups over a number of years. The Pope is offering them what they asked for. Now it is up to them, by the grace of God, to respond. The ball is now in their court.
It is well to recall the Lord’s words to St.Peter: “… I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” This commissioning of Peter follows a question by Jesus, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” to which the reply is uncertain and varied: some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, others Jeremiah, and so on. People were confused. They wanted a Messiah, and were looking for someone of unambiguous majesty and overt political power. Instead, they were confronted with a disconcertingly humble itinerant rabbi-preacher, of whom many were perhaps understandably suspicious. By divine revelation, Peter was given the grace to answer correctly, to acknowledge and proclaim Christ as the Son of God. It is important for all of us, Catholics and potential converts alike, to understand clearly that the proper transmission of the Christian faith is inextricably bound up with the primacy of the Pope, Peter’s successor. St.Peter was given the primacy not as an honour or as a reward, but in order to equip him with those gifts necessary for his task of transmitting the faith to subsequent generations, after Christ’s visible presence had left the earth.
Peter was given the primacy to enable him to become the servant of the servants of God. Equally important is this: the transmission and practice of the faith are inextricably bound up with being in full and visible communion with Peter and his successors. When Christians separate themselves from Peter, the faith is always impaired, sometimes even destroyed. When we unite ourselves with Peter, we find the proper context of our faith, and the authentic means to live it. This is the plain truth. Like all the truths of Catholicism, it is not comprehended merely by argument or ratiocination or negotiation. Study and discussion can certainly help, but they are never enough.
Faith is a supernatural gift from God. So non-Catholics who are considering their position in relation to the Catholic Church must do so, not in the spirit of simply “reaching a decision” as if this were just like any other human decision, weighing the arguments and assessing the probabilities. They should rather be praying with might and main for God to give them the fullness of His gift of faith, a supernatural gift from the Almighty which enables us to believe without doubting all that He has revealed. The fullness of that faith includes the doctrines of the primacy of St.Peter, the necessity of being in communion with his successor the Bishop of Rome, the indefectibility of the Catholic Church as guaranteed by papal infallibility, and all else that flows from those truths.
We Catholics are in no position to be smug and complacent about all this. Yes, we have been given the gift of faith. Yes, we are in full communion with the Holy Father. Such undeserved privileges carry with them grave responsibilities, not least the imperative to give the best possible witness to the truths of the faith by what we say and do, and by what we are. We are also bound in charity to pray fervently for our separated brethren and to give them every possible encouragement and assistance, as brethren, as friends, as fellow disciples of the Lord Jesus. Those of us who at different times and in varying circumstances left the Church of England in order to become Catholics, we know that for any number of contingent human reasons it is often difficult to pursue the right path. How deep the difficulties can be is seen in the long journey made by John Henry Newman. He thought, and studied, and prayed. The most efficacious of these activities was, and always is, prayer. It is also worth remembering that ultimately the decision belongs to God and not to us. Dominus dat incrementum.
If any Anglicans would like to talk to us about all this, please get in touch. We are here to help.
“Be Not Afraid!” As We Embark on This Historic Venture
Mar 4th
Back when I was a television producer at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, I used to receive a lot of free books from publishers hoping I would book the author for a TV interview.
I was attending a seeker-friendly Baptist Church at the time, and adhered to the “It’s just me and Jesus, baby” guide to the Christian faith. I had to understand before I could believe; I had a personal relationship with Jesus and I trusted my conscience to guide me, but would not accept any external authority to guide me except Scripture, which I interpreted with solemn eisegesis.
My exposure to the intellectual tradition of the Catholic Church was only just beginning. One of the few journalists in town who was a practicing Christian was a Catholic convert, and I used to meet him and a group of conservative Catholics for lunch once a week. It was where I found out there was such a chap as G.K. Chesterton. But I staunchly defended my “Solas” which, of course, I interpreted my own way too.
One day a package arrived in the mail at work. It was “Crossing the Threshold of Hope” by John Paul II. I confess that I had a little flicker of derision as I opened up the book. Aside from that, I had been indifferent to the man, and I can kick myself now that I was working in Halifax when he visited in 1984 and I didn’t even bother using my press credentials to get close enough to see him.
I opened the book, and I remember reading “Be not afraid,” that he repeated as a refrain, echoing what he had said in his first homily in St. Peter’s Square. The book’s open pages seemed to glow with a warm light and the room got a little brighter.
That was only one of the many little epiphanies, the step by step “clicks” into place of understanding and spiritual growth that have led me to a place where I say “Yes!” to becoming Catholic. It’s been a gradual process over more than 15 years.
All of us are not at the same stage yet. There are “fightings and fears, within, without,” to borrow from a lovely hymn. We are leaping into an unknown, but what is clear, is this: we cannot remain the same. We have been offered a choice and some of us will say “Yes!,” others have not made up their minds, and others seem to have dug in their heels and say they will never fall under the pope’s authority.
I am thankful for the refining fires ahead and I choose to “Be not afraid!” I exhort all of us to “Be not afraid!”
I believe God will richly bless us for our obedience and I look forward to the flow of graces that are bound to come when we are in official communion with the See of Peter.
John Paul II said:
“In the Church–built on the rock that is Christ–Peter, the apostles, and their successors are witnesses of God crucified and risen in Christ. They are witnesses of the life that is stronger than death. They are witnesses of God who gives life becauase He is Love. They are witnesses because they saw, heard, and touched with their hands the eyes and ears of Peter, John, and many others. . . .
You rightly assert that the Pope is a mystery. You right assert that he is a sign that will be contradicted, that he is a challenge. The old man Simeon said of Christ Himself that He would be “a sign that will be contradicted.”
You also contend that, confronted with such a truth–that is, confronted with the Pope–one must choose; and for many the choice is not easy. But was it so easy for Peter? Was it easy for any of his successors? Is it easy for the present Pope? To choose requires man’s initiative. Christ says: “For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.”
He then goes on to explain the Petrine Ministry in terms of service, Servant of the Servants of God.
I have experienced such love and generosity from so many of the Catholic bishops and priests I have come to know in my work for the Catholic Church. We can expect kindness and prayers.
We need not fear. It is Jesus who is calling us home. “Be not afraid.”
Can the Thirty-Nine Articles Function As a Confessional Standard for Anglicans Today?
Feb 20th
During the Reformation, and for centuries afterward, Protestant bodies defined their theological stances, towards Catholicism and one another, by means of “Confessions of Faith.” Such Confessions were issued by the Lutherans, the Reformed and the Radicals alike, and some Protestant bodies (such as the Mennonites, an offshoot of the Anabaptists of the Radical Reformation) have continued to do so to the present day. Perhaps the first such Confession issued by a group, as opposed to a statement of an individual Reformer, was the Anabaptist Schleitheim Confession of 1527, but others soon followed. Three such Confessions were presented to the Diet of Augsburg in 1530 at the command of the Emperor Charles V, a Catholic, who had demanded a clear account of the position of the Reformers and their supporters. On behalf of the Lutherans, and with Luther’s agreement, Philipp Melanchthon presented the Augsburg Confession, which remains to this day the primary — and for some Lutheran churches the only — binding statement of their belief; on behalf of the Swiss Reformed churches (which had reached an impasse with the Lutherans over Eucharistic doctrine in the preceding year), Huldrych Zwingli’s Reckoning of the Faith; and on behalf of four south German cities the Tetrapolitan Confession, composed by Martin Bucer, Wolfgang Capito and Caspar Hedio, which sought to mediate between the Lutherans and the Reformed. Lutherans, Reformed and Radicals alike continued to produce further confessions, in the case of the Radicals as often as not to differentiate various groups from one another, but in the case of the Lutherans and the Reformed to amplify their original statements, respond to further controversies and to differentiate their views from one another, and from Catholicism. In the case of the Lutherans, such key Confessions as the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles (1537), the Formula of Concord (1577), among others (ten in all), were gathered together in 1580 in the Book of Concord, which itself became normative for most Lutheran churches, but in the case of the Reformed, by contrast, there were many confessions of faith, similar but far from identical with one another, promulgated by various national or regional churches. These included the First Helvetic Confession (1536), the Scots Confession (1560), the Belgic Confession (1561), the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), the Second Helvetic Confession (1566), the Second Scots Confession (1581), the Irish Articles of Religion (1615), the Westminster Confession (1647) and the Confession of the Waldenses (1655). Most Reformed churches, but by no means all, accepted the Canons of the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) which defined the “five points” of Calvinism, namely, namely, total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints. In almost all such “confessional churches” subscription to the confessions was a prerequisite for ordination, promotion or teaching in a Theology Faculty; and in some Protestant countries subscription was a requirement for those holding public office.
In England, of course, Henry VIII’s breach with Rome (1532-34) had nothing to do with Protestant doctrinal ideas of any sort, although to be sure it is doubtful that if the continental Reformation had not happened Henry would have had the willingness or the ability to break with Rome and to have himself declared to be “only Supreme Head under Christ of the Church of England” in 1534. Although Henry came to see himself as a “reformer” as well as a “godly prince” his idea of “reform” extended only so far beyond despoiling the Church as to attack “superstitious devotion” to saints and images, as well as, half-heartedly, the existence of Purgatory. (Henry allowed the existence of Purgatory to be denied, but believed in prayer for the dead; towards the end of his reign he signed a law allowing him to dissolve chantries, endowed foundations that provided for Masses for the dead, but in his own will he endowed thousands of Masses for the repose of his own soul.) For political reasons Henry engaged in sustained negotiations for an alliance with the Lutheran princes of Germany in the 1530s, and since these princes insisted that a religious/confessional agreement had to accompany a political alliance he allowed reform-minded English theologians, among them Archbishop Cranmer, to strive to come to a theological agreement with the Lutherans. Among the results of these negotiations were the Wittenberg Articles of 1536, the Ten Articles later in the same year and Cranmer’s own Thirteen Articles of 1538. These all showed a good deal of practical reform-mindedness, but although they all employed to a greater or lesser extent Lutheran-sounding terms and phrases, they were never promulgated or ratified: Henry had an abiding, if uncomprehending, hostility to the Lutheran doctrine of “Justification by Faith Alone” and an equally abiding devotion to clerical celibacy, and once it became clear by mid 1539 that he had no need for a Lutheran alliance, he cast them aside and upheld a strongly Catholic view on all controverted theological issues for the remainder of his reign.
England had a Protestant Reformation imposed on it in the course of Edward VI’s reign (1547-1553), although the rapidity and spontaneity of the restoration of Catholic practice and rites after Edward’s death in July 1553 and the succession of his catholic half-sister Mary, even before the law was altered to legalize and restore Catholicism, shows how superficial was its effect. Under Edward, changes in practice — the replacement of the Latin Mass by successive Books of Common Prayer in 1549 and 1552, the implementation of communion in both species in 1548, the allowance of clerical marriage in 1549, the removal of altars in 1550 and their replacement by wooden tables, to name the most notable — preceded changes in doctrine, and it was only in June 1553, less than a month before the king’s death, that 42 “Articles of Religion” drafted by Archbishop Cranmer were promulgated by the authority of the Privy Council (no ecclesiastical body or assembly ever debated or approved of them), and they died with the king. Nevertheless, as they formed the basis for the later 39 Articles, it is only right to glance at a few of their distinguishing features. Taken as a whole, they are Protestant, they are Reformed and they are unCatholic (and certainly not in any sense “Anglo-Catholic”). As they were formulated in the 1550s they do not dwell upon matters such as predestination, election, perseverance in grace and assurance of salvation which were to agitate the Reformed world generally and English Protestants particularly from the 1580s onwards, but on matters such as the Eucharist, on which a great chasm had opened between the Lutheran and Reformed camps in the 1520s and which was rapidly becoming more embittered in the 1550s, the 42 Articles took a decidedly Reformed stance. For example, Article 29 (which corresponds to Article 28 in the 39 Articles) “Of the Lord’s Supper” contains a passage, subsequently omitted, which runs “For as much as the truth of man’s nature requireth, that the body of one and the selfsame man cannot be at one time in diverse places, but must needs be in one certain place; therefore the body of Christ cannot be present at one time in many and diverse places. And because, as Holy Scripture doth teach, Christ was taken up into heaven, and there shall continue until the end of the world, a faithful man ought not either to believe or openly to confess the real and bodily presence, as they term it, of Christ’s flesh and blood, in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.” Taken together with the “Black Rubric” (which rejected “anye reall and essencial presence there beeyng of Christ’s naturall fleshe and bloude” in the eucharistic elements) of the 1552 Book of Common Prayer their fully Reformed stance is clear enough. The 42 Articles also contained condemnations of universalism, millenarianism, and the “sleep of souls” until the general resurrection which were omitted from the later 39, as well as the clear statement that “the decrees of predestination are unknown to us” to which many later Calvinists would have objected (if it was interpreted to mean that the elect could not be aware of their own election).
An Intercession of Lancelot Andrewes
Feb 20th
Let us beseech the Lord in peace, for the heavenly peace, and the salvation of our souls;–for the peace of the whole world; for the stability of God’s holy Churches, & the union of them all;–for this holy house, and those who enter it with faith and reverence; for our holy Fathers, the honourable Presbytery, the Diaconate in Christ, and all, both Clergy and people;–for this holy retreat, and all the city and country, and all the faithful who dwell therein;–for salubrious weather, fruitfulness of earth, and peaceful times;–for voyagers, travellers, those who are in sickness, toil, and captivity, and for their salvation. Aid, save, pity, and preserve them, O God, in Thy grace. Making mention of the all-holy, undefiled, and more than blessed Mary, Mother of God and Ever-Virgin, with all saints, let us commend ourselves, and each other, and all our life, to Christ our God.
To Thee, O Lord, for it is fitting, be glory, honour, and worship. The grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with me, and with all of us. Amen.
I commend me and mine, and all that belongs to me, to Him who is able to keep me without falling, & to place me immaculate before the presence of His glory, to the only wise God and our Saviour; to whom be glory and greatness, strength and authority, both now and for all ages. Amen.
(From Lancelot Andrewes’ Greek Devotions (Course of Prayers for the Week: The Fifth Day), translated by J. H. Newman)
Newman’s Meditations on the Stations of the Cross
Feb 19th
Meditations on the Stations of the Cross
Begin with an Act of Contrition
O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee, and I detest all my sins, because I dread the loss of heaven, and the pains of hell; but most of all because they offend Thee, my God, Who are all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace, to confess my sins, to do penance, and to amend my life. Amen.
The First Station
Jesus Is Condemned to Death
V. Adoramus te, Christe, et benedicimus tibi.
R. Quia per sanctam Crucem tuam redemisti mundum.
LEAVING the House of Caiphas, and dragged before Pilate and Herod, mocked, beaten, and spit upon, His back torn with scourges, His head crowned with thorns, Jesus, who on the last day will judge the world, is Himself condemned by unjust judges to a death of ignominy and torture.
Jesus is condemned to death. His death-warrant is signed, and who signed it but I, when I committed my first mortal sins? My first mortal sins, when I fell away from the state of grace into which Thou didst place me by baptism; these it was that were Thy death-warrant, O Lord. The Innocent suffered for the guilty. Those sins of mine were the voices which cried out, “Let Him be crucified.” That willingness and delight of heart with which I committed them was the consent which Pilate gave to this clamorous multitude. And the hardness of heart which followed upon them, my disgust, my despair, my proud impatience, my obstinate resolve to sin on, the love of sin which took possession of me—what were these contrary and impetuous feelings but the blows and the blasphemies with which the fierce soldiers and the populace received Thee, thus carrying out the sentence which Pilate had pronounced?
Pater, Ave, &c.
V. Miserere nostri, Domine.
R. Miserere nostri.
Fidelium animæ, &c.
Anglican Priestly Spirituality
Feb 18th
I give you a few reflections in the light of a wonderful book I have had for about twenty years – Placid Murray, OSB, Newman the Oratorian, Leominster 1980. Much of this book consists of Newman’s previously unpublished Oratory papers, and beautiful meditations they make, especially during Lent.
Certainly, Newman was not a typical Anglican parson of his time. To begin with, he remained a celibate and was an intellectual. His College quadrangle was his cloister. He was a contemplative. The Oratory of St Philip Neri, as founded in England, became a Catholic form of clerical university life. However, Newman was also a pastor, and this was an integral part of his spirituality.
Dom Murray identified four aspects of Newman’s ministry: – the care of souls, liturgical preaching, the Eucharistic ministry and prayer. The starting point is the notion of responsibility for souls. This pastoral aspect is probably the greatest bond of continuity between Newman’s Anglican ministry and Catholic priestly life. This care of souls was for him primarily an apostolate to the intellect. This is the one thing we all have in common. I would have loved to be a village parish priest here in Normandy (and perhaps, God willing, it might happen), but my ministry is presently my liturgy and prayers in chapel and my work for The Anglo-Catholic. Newman’s ministry was essentially the same between his tutoring work at Oriel, teaching at Propaganda Fidei and his apostolate at the Birmingham Oratory.
We Anglicans hit a nerve with the Holy Father as one of the most brilliant theologians of modern times. Each at our own level, we strive to teach and guide, through training people to use their brains and minds so that they can reason instead of being manipulated by the baser instincts of humanity. Perhaps the most characteristic element of Anglican ministry is expository preaching, an art of which Newman was a master. His approach was essentially liturgical, which is precisely something that was demanded by the Council of Trent and Vatican II.
There is another element that I personally share with Newman, and it was brought home to me as I observed that rather ugly situation in a French parish less than two hours’ drive from my village. The issue here is the priest’s stability and his right to an intimate life, either in marriage or in a community of celibate clerics. For him as for myself, small and intimate is beautiful. Newman’s vocation was nurtured in his Oxford college, and he found his Catholic vocation in the Oratory – a one-off Catholic institution that allows secular priests to live in the same place for life and grow into it and intertwine with priests and faithful alike. The Oratorian’s “nest” is important – Yea, the sparrow hath found her an house, and the swallow a nest where she may lay her young : even thy altars, O Lord of hosts, my King and my God (Ps. 84).
We are, even as Anglicans, different from each other, but I very much identify with this idea of putting down roots and living a spiritual life in a close relationship with a place and the people of that place. These days, in most Catholic dioceses, the priest must be prepared to lose any attachment to his roots, and forsake both family life and stabilitas loci. A diocesan priest is utterly alone. Monks give up private property, but they receive everything they need from the Abbot and the community. They have stability, security and familiarity with the buildings and the community. Perhaps the Bishops are not wrong to move parish priests every six to eight years, and have them serve more than thirty or forty churches. I cannot think of anything more soul-destroying and discouraging of young vocations. The solution to the vocations crisis will be found when these questions are taken seriously by diocesan bishops. If there was ever a question of my being a parish priest, I would accept such a ministry only if I knew I could stay as long as I would be welcomed and appreciated by the laity, and as I thought right – perhaps for the rest of my life. But, I doubt that will happen.
Perhaps, and this would be the supreme irony as it was instituted by Blessed Pius IX, the Italian Oratory as it was adapted for the Oxford converts of the 1840’s, was a “personal ordinariate” before its time. It was designed to be kind to the vocations of former Anglican priests and academics who became Catholics.
As we find in the example of the present Pope, all these subtle characteristics of Anglican priestly spirituality are not peculiar to Anglicanism. There is a strand in continental Catholicism of that gentle kindness in St Philip Neri and St François de Sales, and this gentleness comes from having prayed, read and reasoned with the eyes of a child. What a contrast to the harshness and vindictiveness of so many others in the same Church! The English Oratories, founded in the mid nineteenth century, are still flagships of the “reform of the reform” liturgical spirit, lofty beauty, and a gentle and kindly priest in the confessional.
Life in the Ordinariates will certainly not afford us the luxuries of large Victorian churches and houses for fifteen or more priests to live in community. Our life will be poorer and rougher, and most of us don’t have the intellectual edge of Newman. I certainly don’t! Most of us are married and will continue to live our normal family lives. I hope we will find every encouragement to continue in our ministry of prayer, administering the Sacraments and preaching (whether it is from the traditional pulpit or using modern media like the Internet).
May we continue to be gentle and kind with our people and penitents who find the courage to approach us for confession and spiritual direction. It is an awesome responsibility.
Virgo Purissima
Feb 10th
Tomorrow (February 11), is the Feast of the Apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary Immaculate. The apparitions of Our Lady of Lourdes began on 11 February 1858, when Bernadette Soubirous, a 14-year-old peasant girl from Lourdes admitted, when questioned by her mother, that she had seen a “lady” in the cave of Massabielle, about a mile from the town, while she was gathering firewood with her sister and a friend. Similar appearances of the “lady” took place on seventeen further occasions that year. There, on March 25, St. Bernadette was told by the Lady, “I am the Immaculate Conception” (“que soy era immaculada concepciou”).
The following mediation on the Immaculate Conception appears in Meditations and Devotions by John Henry Newman and edited by Rev. W. P. Neville.
By the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin is meant the great revealed truth that she was conceived in the womb of her mother, St. Anne, without original sin.
Since the fall of Adam all mankind, his descendants, are conceived and born in sin. “Behold,” says the inspired writer in the Psalm Miserere—”Behold, I was conceived in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me”. That sin which belongs to every one of us, and is ours from the first moment of our existence, is the sin of unbelief and disobedience, by which Adam lost Paradise. We, as the children of Adam, are heirs to the consequences of his sin, and have forfeited in him that spiritual robe of grace and holiness which he had given him by his Creator at the time that he was made. In this state of forfeiture and disinheritance we are all of us conceived and born; and the ordinary way by which we are taken out of it is the Sacrament of Baptism.
But Mary never was in this state; she was by the eternal decree of God exempted from it. From eternity, God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, decreed to create the race of man, and, foreseeing the fall of Adam, decreed to redeem the whole race by the Son’s taking flesh and suffering on the Cross. In that same incomprehensible, eternal instant, in which the Son of God was born of the Father, was also the decree passed of man’s redemption through Him. He who was born from Eternity was born by an eternal decree to save us in Time, and to redeem the whole race; and Mary’s redemption was determined in that special manner which we call the Immaculate Conception. It was decreed, not that she should be cleansed from sin, but that she should, from the first moment of her being, be preserved from sin; so that the Evil One never had any part in her. Therefore she was a child of Adam and Eve as if they had never fallen; she did not share with them their sin; she inherited the gifts and graces (and more than those) which Adam and Eve possessed in Paradise. This is her prerogative, and the foundation of all those salutary truths which are revealed to us concerning her. Let us say then with all holy souls, Virgin most pure, conceived without original sin, Mary, pray for us.
Some Thoughts From Newman
Jan 15th
To add to the discussion of the doctrine of papal infallibility, here are a couple of quotes from the Venerable John Henry Newman:
What I believe about the Pope, I believe, as I believe any other doctrine, – because the Church teaches it – but, for me, the Church directs me to the Pope not the Pope directs me to the Church. – from Letters and Diaries, Vol. XXII, p.95
Its communion with the see of St. Peter is not a ‘Note of the Church’. How then do I know which is the true Church? I know it by the tokens of its unity, its apostolicity, its pretensions etc etc. I admit that there are able men who have been led into the Church through belief in the Pope’s prerogatives. But a man need not believe in the jus divinum of the see of St. Peter in order to submit himself to the church which is in communion with it. This was my own case. I did not distinctly believe in the jus divinum of the Holy See till I joined the Church. I then believed in it as I believed in any other doctrine of the Church, because she was the Church, the oracle of Christ. I believed in the seven sacraments forthwith, because she taught them de fide; and for the same reason I believed in the jus divinum of the Papacy forthwith. – from Letters and Diaries, Vol. XX, p.308
Ecclesiastical Sundries
Jan 6th
- The Tablet reports that the Holy Father will visit the UK in September. The Pope will arrive in England on 16 September and travel to Scotland on 19 September (spending only nine hours there and likely meeting the Queen) before returning to Rome. The Beatification of John Henry Cardinal Newman will take place at Coventry Airport.
- The bishops of England and Wales make their ad limina visits to Rome later this month. There have already been several attempts (subtle and otherwise) on the part of persons connected with the Bishops’ Conference to undermine Anglicanorum Coetibus to which the CDF has swiftly responded. The English bishops should expect that the intent of the Holy Father in the recent Apostolic Constitution will be reiterated in no uncertain terms.
- Bishop Christian Nourrichard, the Bishop of Evreux in Normandy, France, was admitted as a Sarum Canon at Salisbury Cathedral. This happened back in October, but as Fr. Chadwick has been following the lamentable story of this arrogant bishop’s attempt to remove a faithful parish priest in Thiberville, I thought I’d share the tidbit. The Bishop of Salisbury said after the installment service, “I am keen that we learn from Evreux’s imaginative solutions to the problem of having only a quarter as many clergy as we do to minister to an area the same size. In particular, their use of lay people in positions of responsibility and leadership is a pattern I would like us to explore.” I wonder how many other faithful priests have been forced out so that Bishop Nourrichard’s “pattern” could emerge?
- The Shroud of Turin will be on exhibition from 10 April to 23 May 2010. The Archdiocese of Turin has an online reservation system here. Admission to the Cathedral is open without a reservation but the Holy Shroud may only be viewed from a distance without a (free) reservation.
Old Catholicism and False Difficulties with Papal Authority in the Church
Jan 1st
One occasionally comes across references to the Old Catholic Church, usually understood as the Union of Utrecht, which is an ecclesial body in communion with the Church of England since 1931 and a member of the World Council of Churches. Historically, Old Catholicism was an amalgam of the Dutch Jansenists who broke from Rome in the early eighteenth century and a number of groups of Swiss and German intellectuals who aligned themselves with the minority “anti-infallibilists” at Vatican I and the Kulturkampf of Kaiser Bismarck.
The title Old Catholicism came more from the Swiss and German liberals rather than from the Dutch, who called themselves something like the Roman Catholic Church of the Old Episcopal Clergy. From the early days of the twentieth century, this movement had its imitators in the forms of long strings of successions of episcopi vagantes. Few of those men had ever belonged to the schismatic Archdiocese of Utrecht or the Germanic liberal and anti-infallibilist groups. Their only connection with historical Old Catholicism is the origin of their episcopal lineages. The subject hardly merits comment.
Historical Old Catholicism was largely based on European liberalism of the nineteenth century and the anti-clerical ideology of the German Kulturkampf. The German and Swiss versions of this break from Rome were very near to the liberal Protestant position of the likes of Harnack and the later Bultmann. It was to be a religion without miracles, mystery or spirituality. The Catholic world accepted the Vatican I definition of Papal infallibility, and the minority position of Döllinger, Strossmayer, etc. was quickly discredited. The biggest mistake of the dissident Archbishop of Utrecht was to consecrate Dr. Reinkens, thus leading to the Union of Utrecht of 1889. However, it was understandable, the dry branch cut off from the tree since 1725 was desperate in its loneliness, and the originally Jansenist Dutch community by then had run out of steam and relevance.
Soloviev observed that Old Catholicism had never been a popular movement. It was a confined circle of intellectuals and bourgeois liberals. The schism was thus inoffensive for Rome and useless for the Teutonic empire of the time. They were given a few churches here and there in Europe, and were joined by a certain number of families. It was not surprising that the Roman Catholic characteristics and disciplines were dropped one by one at the end of the nineteenth century, and by 1910, the venerable Latin liturgy was gone and replaced by simplified vernacular rites. They united with the Church of England in 1931, and thereafter followed all the developments including the banalisation and secularisation of the liturgy, the ordination of women, LGBT inclusion, etc. Only the Polish National Catholic Church resisted the movement and broke away from both the Episcopal Church and the Union of Utrecht.
Memorandum on the Immaculate Conception IV
Dec 7th
Below is the fourth and final excerpt from John Henry Cardinal Newman’s Memorandum on the Immaculate Conception. The Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary is December 8th.
IV
Now I wish it observed why I thus adduce the Fathers and Scripture. Not to prove the doctrine, but to rid it of any such monstrous improbability as would make a person scruple to accept it when the Church declares it. A Protestant is apt to say: “Oh, I really never, never can accept such a doctrine from the hands of the Church, and I had a thousand thousand times rather determine that the Church spoke falsely, than that so terrible a doctrine was true.” Now, my good man, WHY? Do not go off in such a wonderful agitation, like a horse shying at he does not know what. Consider what I have said. Is it, after all, certainly irrational? is it certainly against Scripture? is it certainly against the primitive Fathers? is it certainly idolatrous? I cannot help smiling as I put the questions. Rather, may not something be said for it from reason, from piety, from antiquity, from the inspired text? You may see no reason at all to believe the voice of the Church; you may not yet have attained to faith in it—but what on earth this doctrine has to do with shaking your faith in her, if you have faith, or in sending you to the right-about if you are beginning to think she may be from God, is more than my mind can comprehend. Many, many doctrines are far harder than the Immaculate Conception. The doctrine of Original Sin is indefinitely harder. Mary just has not this difficulty. It is no difficulty to believe that a soul is united to the flesh without original sin; the great mystery is that any, that millions on millions, are born with it. Our teaching about Mary has just one difficulty less than our teaching about the state of mankind generally.
I say it distinctly—there may be many excuses at the last day, good and bad, for not being Catholics; one I cannot conceive: “O Lord, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was so derogatory to Thy grace, so inconsistent with Thy Passion, so at variance with Thy word in Genesis and the Apocalypse, so unlike the teaching of Thy first Saints and Martyrs, as to give me a right to reject it at all risks, and Thy Church for teaching it. It is a doctrine as to which my private judgment is fully justified in opposing the Church’s judgment. And this is my plea for living and dying a Protestant.”
Memorandum on the Immaculate Conception III
Dec 7th
Below is the third excerpt from John Henry Cardinal Newman’s Memorandum on the Immaculate Conception. The Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary is December 8th.
III
As to primitive notion about our Blessed Lady, really, the frequent contrast of Mary with Eve seems very strong indeed. It is found in St. Justin, St. Irenæus, and Tertullian, three of the earliest Fathers, and in three distinct continents—Gaul, Africa, and Syria. For instance, “the knot formed by Eve’s disobedience was untied by the obedience of Mary; that what the Virgin Eve tied through unbelief that the Virgin Mary unties through faith.” Again, “The Virgin Mary becomes the Advocate (Paraclete) of the Virgin Eve, that as mankind has been bound to death through a Virgin, through a Virgin it may be saved, the balance being preserved, a Virgin’s disobedience by a Virgin’s obedience” (St. Irenæus, Hæer. v. 19). Again, “As Eve, becoming disobedient, became the cause of death to herself and to all mankind, so Mary, too, bearing the predestined Man, and yet a Virgin, being obedient, became the CAUSE OF SALVATION both to herself and to all mankind.” Again, “Eve being a Virgin, and incorrupt, bore disobedience and death, but Mary the Virgin, receiving faith and joy, when Gabriel the Angel evangelised her, answered, ‘Be it unto me,’” &c. Again, “What Eve failed in believing, Mary by believing hath blotted out.”
1. Now, can we refuse to see that, according to these Fathers, who are earliest of the early, Mary was a typical woman like Eve, that both were endued with special gifts of grace, and that Mary succeeded where Eve failed?
2. Moreover, what light they cast upon St. Alfonso’s doctrine, of which a talk is sometimes made, of the two ladders. You see according to these most early Fathers, Mary undoes what Eve had done; mankind is saved through a Virgin; the obedience of Mary becomes the cause of salvation to all mankind. Moreover, the distinct way in which Mary does this is pointed out when she is called by the early Fathers an Advocate. The word is used of our Lord and the Holy Ghost—of our Lord, as interceding for us in His own Person; of the Holy Ghost, as interceding in the Saints. This is the white way, as our Lord’s own special way is the red way, viz. of atoning Sacrifice.
3. Further still, what light these passages cast on two texts of Scripture. Our reading is, “She shall bruise thy head.” Now, this fact alone of our reading, “She shall bruise,” has some weight, for why should not, perhaps, our reading be the right one? But take the comparison of Scripture with Scripture, and see how the whole hangs together as we interpret it. A war between a woman and the serpent is spoken of in Genesis. Who is the serpent? Scripture nowhere says till the twelfth chapter of the Apocalypse. There at last, for the first time, the “Serpent” is interpreted to mean the Evil Spirit. Now, how is he introduced? Why, by the vision again of a Woman, his enemy—and just as, in the first vision in Genesis, the Woman has a “seed,” so here a “Child.” Can we help saying, then, that the Woman is Mary in the third of Genesis? And if so, and our reading is right, the first prophecy ever given contrasts the Second Woman with the First—Mary with Eve, just as St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, and Tertullian do.
4. Moreover, see the direct bearing of this upon the Immaculate Conception. There was war between the woman and the Serpent. This is most emphatically fulfilled if she had nothing to do with sin—for, so far as any one sins, he has an alliance with the Evil One.
Memorandum on the Immaculate Conception II
Dec 6th
Below is the second excerpt from John Henry Cardinal Newman’s Memorandum on the Immaculate Conception. The Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary is December 8th.
II
Next, Was it a primitive doctrine? No one can add to revelation. That was given once for all;—but as time goes on, what was given once for all is understood more and more clearly. The greatest Fathers and Saints in this sense have been in error, that, since the matter of which they spoke had not been sifted, and the Church had not spoken, they did not in their expressions do justice to their own real meaning. E.g., the Athanasian Creed says that the Son is “immensus” (in the Protestant version, “incomprehensible”). Bishop Bull, though defending the ante-Nicene Fathers, says that it is a marvel that “nearly all of them have the appearance of being ignorant of the invisibility and immensity of the Son of God.” Do I for a moment think they were ignorant? No, but that they spoke inconsistently, because they were opposing other errors, and did not observe what they said. When the heretic Arius arose, and they saw the use which was made of their admissions, the Fathers retracted them.
(2) The great Fathers of the fourth century seem, most of them, to consider our Lord in His human nature ignorant, and to have grown in knowledge, as St. Luke seems to say. This doctrine was anathematized by the Church in the next century, when the Monophysites arose.
(3) In like manner, there are Fathers who seem to deny original sin, eternal punishment, &c.
(4) Further, the famous symbol “Consubstantial,” as applied to the Son, which is in the Nicene Creed, was condemned by a great Council of Antioch, with Saints in it, seventy years before. Why? Because that Council meant something else by the word.
Now, as to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, it was implied in early times, and never denied. In the Middle Ages it was denied by St. Thomas and by St. Bernard, but they took the phrase in a different sense from that in which the Church now takes it. They understood it with reference to our Lady’s mother, and thought it contradicted the text, “In sin hath my mother conceived me”—whereas we do not speak of the Immaculate Conception except as relating to Mary; and the other doctrine (which St. Thomas and St. Bernard did oppose) is really heretical.
Memorandum on the Immaculate Conception
Dec 4th
Below is the first of several excerpts that will be posted in the coming days from John Henry Cardinal Newman’s Memorandum on the Immaculate Conception. The Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary is December 8th.
I
1. IT is so difficult for me to enter into the feelings of a person who understands the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and yet objects to it, that I am diffident about attempting to speak on the subject. I was accused of holding it, in one of the first books I wrote, twenty years ago. On the other hand, this very fact may be an argument against an objector—for why should it not have been difficult to me at that time, if there were a real difficulty in receiving it?
2. Does not the objector consider that Eve was created, or born, without original sin? Why does not this shock him? Would he have been inclined to worship Eve in that first estate of hers? Why, then, Mary?
3. Does he not believe that St. John Baptist had the grace of God—i.e., was regenerated, even before his birth? What do we believe of Mary, but that grace was given her at a still earlier period? All we say is, that grace was given her from the first moment of her existence.
4. We do not say that she did not owe her salvation to the death of her Son. Just the contrary, we say that she, of all mere children of Adam, is in the truest sense the fruit and the purchase of His Passion. He has done for her more than for anyone else. To others He gives grace and regeneration at a point in their earthly existence; to her, from the very beginning.
5. We do not make her nature different from others. Though, as St. Austin says, we do not like to name her in the same breath with mention of sin, yet, certainly she would have been a frail being, like Eve, without the grace of God. A more abundant gift of grace made her what she was from the first. It was not her nature which secured her perseverance, but the excess of grace which hindered Nature acting as Nature ever will act. There is no difference in kind between her and us, though an inconceivable difference of degree. She and we are both simply saved by the grace of Christ.
Thus, sincerely speaking, I really do not see what the difficulty is, and should like it set down distinctly in words. I will add that the above statement is no private statement of my own. I never heard of any Catholic who ever had any other view. I never heard of any other put forth by anyone.
An Advent Meditation from Cardinal Newman
Nov 28th
In this passage from an 1838 sermon Newman explains that Christian worship should prepare us on earth for meeting Christ our Judge. Only prayer, the sacraments, and profession of the whole mystery of faith can make us ready for that radically new life that awaits us in heaven. From the Cause for the Canonisation of John Henry Cardinal Newman web site.
Men sometimes ask, Why need they profess religion? Why need they go to church? Why need they observe certain rites and ceremonies? Why need they watch, pray, fast, and meditate? Why is it not enough to be just, honest, sober, benevolent, and otherwise virtuous? Is not this the true and real worship of God? Is not activity in mind and conduct the most acceptable way of approaching Him? How can they please Him by submitting to certain religious forms, and taking part in certain religious acts? Or if they must do so, why may they not choose their own? Why must they come to church for them? Why must they be partakers in what the Church calls Sacraments?
I answer, they must do so, first of all and especially, because God tells them so to do. But besides this, I observe that we see this plain reason why, that they are one day to change their state of being. They are not to be here for ever. Direct intercourse with God on their part now, prayer and the like, may be necessary to their meeting Him suitably hereafter: and direct intercourse on His part with them, or what we call sacramental communion, may be necessary in some incomprehensible way, even for preparing their very nature to bear the sight of Him.
Let us then take this view of religious service; it is “going out to meet the Bridegroom,” [see Matt. 25: 6] who, if not seen “in His beauty,” [Isaiah 33: 17] will appear in consuming fire. Besides its other momentous reasons, it is a preparation for an awful event, which shall one day be. What it would be to meet Christ at once without preparation, we may learn from what happened even to the Apostles when His glory was suddenly manifested to them. St. Peter said, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” [Luke 5: 8] And St. John, “when he saw Him, fell at His feet as dead.” [Rev. 1: 17]
This being the case, it is certainly most merciful in God to vouchsafe to us the means of preparation, and such means as He has actually appointed. When Moses came down from the Mount, and the people were dazzled at his countenance, he put a veil over it. That veil is so far removed in the Gospel, that we are in a state of preparation for its being altogether removed. We are with Moses in the Mount so far, that we have a sight of God; we are with the people beneath it so far, that Christ does not visibly show Himself. He has put a veil on, and He sits among us silently and secretly. When we approach Him, we know it only by faith; and when He manifests Himself to us, it is without our being able to realize to ourselves that manifestation.
Such then is the spirit in which we should come to all His ordinances, considering them as anticipations and first-fruits of that sight of Him which one day must be. When we kneel down in prayer in private, let us think to ourselves, Thus shall I one day kneel down before His very footstool, in this flesh and this blood of mine; and He will be seated over against me, in flesh and blood also, though divine. I come, with the thought of that awful hour before me, I come to confess my sin to Him now, that He may pardon it then, and I say, “O Lord, Holy God, Holy and Strong, Holy and Immortal, in the hour of death and in the day of judgment, deliver us, O Lord!”
Again, when we come to church, then let us say:—The day will be when I shall see Christ surrounded by His Holy Angels. I shall be brought into that blessed company, in which all will be pure, all bright. I come then to learn to endure the sight of the Holy One and His Servants; to nerve myself for a vision which is fearful before it is ecstatic, and which they only enjoy whom it does not consume.
Pope to Beatify Cardinal Newman in England
Nov 27th
The Catholic Herald reports that Pope Benedict XVI will break his own rules and beatify John Henry Cardinal Newman himself during his upcoming trip to the UK.
The Pope is to waive his own rules so he can preside in person over the beatification of Cardinal John Henry Newman during a papal visit to Britain next year, according to sources close to the Vatican.
Pope Benedict XVI will personally take charge of the ceremony to declare the Victorian convert Blessed when he visits England in early September at the invitation of Gordon Brown.
The Pope has previously insisted that all beatifications are carried out by a Vatican official in the diocese in which the candidate died, which in Newman’s case is Birmingham.
But because the Pope has such a strong devotion to Cardinal Newman and his theological writings he has decided to break his own rules and beatify the cardinal himself.
Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster refused to either confirm or deny the report: “The details of the Pope’s visit are far from clear,” he said. “What is clear is that the Holy Father has a great and long-standing devotion to Cardinal Newman and the beatification of Cardinal Newman is due.”
Fr Ian Ker, author of the definitive biography of Cardinal Newman, said: “By breaking his own rules Pope Benedict clearly shows he regards Newman as a completely exceptional case, one of the great theologians of the Catholic Church. Many of the popes have been anxious to canonise Newman. They look to him as a man who welcomed modernisation but in fidelity to Church authority and in continuity with the traditions of the Church.”
Pope Benedict announced the beatification in July after Vatican theologians ruled that the inexplicable healing of Jack Sullivan, an American with a severe spinal condition, was a miracle brought about by praying for help to Cardinal Newman.
Newman Cause on the Bitter Pill
Nov 20th
The web site of the Cause for the Canonisation of John Henry Cardinal Newman has published a great editorial in which The Tablet (aka “The Bitter Pill” to which I will provide no link) is taken to task for its contention that the new Apostolic Constitution is too easy on us Anglicans. According to The Tablet, we ought to be ‘transformed’ into real Catholics, which by the liberal rag’s definition means tossing out traditional beliefs about the Liturgy, the Priesthood and our Blessed Lady!
The Newman Cause editorial includes this great quote from the Venerable Cardinal Newman on his conversion experience:
I was not conscious to myself, on my conversion, of any change, intellectual or moral, wrought in my mind. I was not conscious of firmer faith in the fundamental truths of Revelation, or of more self-command; I had not more fervour; but it was like coming into port after a rough sea …
Read the whole article here.
