What are your views on John Henry Cardinal Newman as a theologian and a convert to Roman Catholicism?
Read this from Father Newman: comes from Sermon 24: The Power of the Will by John Henry Newman Volume V [Note: Preached on Quinquagesima.] Sermon 24 http://www.lectionarycentral.com/trinity21/NewmanEpistle.html
Some would argue that JHN was our gift to the Roman Communion, and that his was one of the voices that drove Vatican II. I think my favorite JHN is 'One would do nothing at all if one waited until one could do it so well that none could find fault'. There is of course the argument that he was largely driven from the Anglican Church, rather than he left it.
As I understand it, it was the harshness of those around who took a different view to JHN, that ultimately led him to the position where he felt his only option was to leave the faith community of his forbears. The question is always how elastic can the Anglican position be. The question of Mutual Responsibility and Interdependence within the body of Christ calls us all to listen as well as speak. It is a while since I read Apologia but I took his point that he had tried to be a faithful Anglican until he felt there was no place left for him.
Both Newman and Chesterton would've had a heart attack if they saw the current state of the RCC today. What some claim drove them to join the RCC are now among the reasons many have left the RCC since the V2 reforms, including sex scandals, heresy being taught by inept priest, poor catechization of adherents, etc. You will find no end of Roman Catholic articles online celebrating Anglican conversions to the RCC. In contrast, you'll find few that point the other way around. All Google can bring up for me most of the time is not RC conversion to traditional Anglicanism but RC conversion to the liberal Episcopal Church in favor of gay marriage, abortion, premarital sex, etc. which is an embarrassment to Anglicans who hold to traditional biblical morality. It makes it seem like they have no good reason to leave the RCC except to endorse sin. RCCs often talk about Anglicans like they are a piece of fertilizer. I myself am sick of it.
In the Pacific Northwest there are few Traditional Anglican churches, whereas Episcopal churches are everywhere.
Since Bishop John Jewel is considered a noteworthy contender here, what did Newman have to say against his defense of traditional Anglicanism?
I think it's amazing that some people still have a high regard for Newman. Apart from the fact that he rent Anglicanism in two with his Romeward confusions, he added a major liberal concept into Christianity, which is now tearing the Roman church in two. What concept, you ask? The development of doctrine. That's probably his most famous contribution to theology. It is no accident that Newman was canonized for his invention of the Development of Doctrine by Pope Francis (the most liberal/errant pope we've seen in our lifetimes). Newman has paved the way for Pope Francis and for the apparent self-destruction of Roman Catholicism we are seemingly witnessing before our very eyes. The idea that doctrine can change (even benevolently change, as he tried to claim); that it can weave and develop, has been the single most potent concept behind the emergence of liberal Christianity, and especially (since Newman went RC), in Roman Catholicism. It is notably absent in Anglican circles. You hear lots of talk of the development of doctrine in RC circles (even among conservatives!); I never hear of it in Anglican circles. *whew*
As far as the development of doctrine: OK, so you know that many books of the bible contain certain portions of knowledge or teaching about God that others might not, right? OK, so in the earliest books, where did they get the understanding of something that's only found in later books before they were written? I think I know the answer to counter the supposed development idea, but I want to see what you think.
Within Scripture itself, it is quite fair to say that there is elaboration which occurs with time. God is free to elaborate on his Word and illuminate the world with his truth. That's altogether different from the 'development' which Newman ascribed to the Church. The Church has no right or permission to 'elaborate' on God's Word, whereas God does have permission to elaborate on himself. By ascribing this power of elaboration to itself, the Church has ascribed to itself the capacities of God. But because it's still fallen human beings, its 'elaborations' have been more and more fallen and corrupt with time. This was the scene this weekend of a heinous pagan worship ritual which Pope Francis celebrated with the cannibals of the Amazon: http://adventmessenger.org/pagan-wo...pope-francis-meeting-with-his-amazon-bishops/
I've heard Romanists say that, despite the church claiming that 'public revelation is over', they will worship Mary as part of the Trinity if the church decides that it should be so. That, and you'll hear Roman Catholics say, "You can take Jesus away from me but you can't take away Mary".
This kind of sentiment is far removed from the teaching of the Catholic Church and from the teach of the Roman Catholic Church. If you take Jesus away then Mary points to nothing, because Mary always points to Jesus. Mary speaks the biggest yes to the divine ever uttered from our frail humanity. Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord, let it be to me according to your word.
That's making the apologetic of the Roman Church, for the Roman Church. What's the point of doing that? We all have seen many times how Mary appears to be worshipped directly in RCC circles. You can have a standard excuse on the books, and then you can have actual practical behaviors on the ground, which oftentimes directly contradict the standard excuse. Haven't you seen the icons of resurrected Mary stepping out of the tomb, as if she were Jesus? Or of her in heaven, in heavenly glow, surrounded by angels, with the Father and the Holy Ghost? I agree that this isn't the teaching of the Catholic Church; but it is far more murky as to whether the Roman Church is in conformity with the Catholic Church, on Mary.
The thing is, what something claims to offer is not always what it delivers in practice. I myself am still puzzled as to why there was a 'pastoral decision' in the Vatican II universalist 60's to allow priests to go anywhere they wanted, to make confession available to children age 7-8, all admist the sexual revolution, which coincided with dabbling in new religions, many of which were compromised psuedo-Christian cults where the bible was used as a basis except sexual sins and other things were now OK. Many people raised in the churches were also becoming more liberal.
I don't think that is my point. If I want to say that the rcc teaches xy or z I need to back that up with some evidence, and these days that would normally be a reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (ccc). In general it is not a helpful approach to say they teach pqr based on some loose chat from some people who may not be fully informed. I am neither a roman nor a papist, but I don't find Anglicanism requires me to be anti anything more than sin, the devil, ignorance and that which enslaves my fellow beings. My task as an Anglican is not to demolish the Roman Church, but rather to lift Jesus higher that he might draw all people to himself. That might be said of Anglicanism at times as well, which might be part of ur problems in the current age.