The following lines from Newman’s response to Pusey’s Eirenicon bear meditating upon:
It is impossible, I say, in a doctrine like this, to draw the line cleanly between truth and error, right and wrong. This is ever the case in concrete matters, which have life. Life in this world is motion, and involves a continual process of change. Living things grow into their perfection, into their decline, into their death. No rule of art will suffice to stop the operation of this natural law, whether in the material world or in the human mind. We can indeed encounter disorders, when they occur, by external antagonism and remedies; but we cannot eradicate the process itself, out of which they arise. Life has the same right to decay, as it has to wax strong. This is specially the case with great ideas. You may stifle them; or you may refuse them elbow-room; or again, you may torment them with your continual meddling; or you may let them have free course and range, and be content, instead of anticipating their excesses, to expose and restrain those excesses after they have occurred. But you have only this alternative; and for myself, I prefer much wherever it is possible, to be first generous and then just; to grant full liberty of thought, and to call it to account when abused.
The ‘doctrine’ at issue here is the Catholic devotion to the Blessed Virgin. Pusey had done what others before and since him had done and do, they had looked at some of the popular expressions of piety, selected the ones furthest from their own cultural background and then decided these things supported the conclusion they had come in with – that the Church practices idolatry. They had done what we all do from time to time, approached the issue with our minds made up, and selected evidence which justified what we already thought. This is, a Newman points out, the opposite of how a Christian ought to approach questions.
Newman pointed out that the same Fathers of the Church who had praised Mary had been the same men who had helped establish Scripture. Protestants always struggle with that argument, and rarely, if ever, address the issue of the grounds on which they accept one part of the teaching of the Church, but reject other parts; as it can be nothing more than their own subjective judgment, that is wise of them. Like our own Bosco, they move on to some other supposed enormity.
But if there is a challenge for Protestants here from Newman, so there is to his fellow Catholics. As is the case for most converts, to see a clear line drawn between truth and error, and so Newman’s assertion about the impossibility of drawing it on matters such as devotion to Our Lady, the form of the Mass and other matters, comes as a challenge. But we should ponder his words. It is, indeed, a characteristic of living things that they grow. Some of the implications of this will form the subject of the next few postings.
All Along the Watchtower 
I would suppose that this drawing of lines depends somewhat on what has been ‘universally decided’ by the Church and taught without error. In such a question or action it is quite easy for those who have been blessed to have the teaching taught to them by the Church to adhere to a line and to react when that line has been crossed or more likely been smudged into a wide swath of fuzziness where some prefer to gamble with their souls. In such an instance, it seems the wise course to hold to tradition and defined teaching as taught. If one is corrected by the Church at some later date then traipsing into no man’s land seems an act of obedience rather than an a act of rebellion and defiance.
LikeLike
I think Newman’s point is that the number of points which have been universally decided by the Church is fewer than we might suppose.
To take up a point he doesn’t, the Tridentine Mass is only one particular form the Mass has taken in the past two thousand years, it is not the only form, it is not the only prescribed form, and has no more, and now no less validity than the Paul VI Mass. We may all have our views – and I suspect mine is the same as your own – as to which we prefer, but some erect that personal preference into something it was never meant to be – that is as a reflection of what they think the Church ought to teach rather than what it does teach.
LikeLike
I agree that within the confines of ‘validity’ one cannot dispute that which is (once again) defined by the Church. But on preference as to whether the practice conforms more or reflects better or best to the prayer of the Church is legitimate as an argument. And I believe, we both would indeed make the same choice as to preference if it were available and simply a matter of deciding which to attend.
LikeLike
I choose this issue rather than one easier for me, precisely because it is difficult for me.
I amy (and do) agree that in my mind TLM represents better what I think the Church is, but then I have to ask whether I know better than the many priests and bishops who brought in the vernacular Masses in the way they did? I may well think I do, but then I have little doubt the priests concerned thought they did; perhaps it is more truly Universal to have both?
LikeLike
Ah but now you bring into the mix the vernacular which was done by sleight of hand. It was only approved in dioceses where it had been grand-fathered in by disobedient priests and bishops before the council had even met. And now . . . this disobedience has been rewarded by allowing such to anyone who asked for it. This is an indult and not a regular form of the Mass – though it now seems to be. It was not the wishes of the Council Fathers just as it was not their wish that we receive the Sacred Species in our hands. Another insult or should I say an insult to the Council.
LikeLike
I, of course, tend to agree, but then if we look back, this was very much how so much of liturgy evolved. Trent is one of the few occasions when a Council devoted itself to liturgy. In general liturgies have tended to be local developments which other dioceses have decided to follow, and it has grown from there.
That is something quite close to what has happened in our own times. I daresay when they started saying the Mass in Latin, sometime in the second of third century there were those who thought it inferior to the Greek (which in some ways it is, Latin is a less nuanced language) and complained. But in the west it caught on. It lasted for more than a thousand years, and so obviously had a good deal going for it. But that does not make it the only form, or those who moved in a way we dislike, somehow disloyal or bad.
On communion in the hand, that is clearly set out in the earliest catechetical practice manual we have. We have departed from that for many years, so long that most people think it was always so; but it wasn’t. Again, I know which I prefer, the same as you, but this is, again, a practice and not a doctrine or dogma – all of which goes to Newman’s point, that the Church actually allows a good deal of variation, so much so that some people can point to one part of it, claim it is the whole, and write as Bosco does!
LikeLike
I totally understand your argument C and Latin and Greek are held as Sacred Language precisely because they are dead languages and cannot then be twisted by time to have the words mean different things according to the changes and usages in a particular society as does any living language.
However things grow from the practice of the people, I am sure that practices that grow from disobedience have more chance of being a decline and not a living growth of the Church. Take for instance, the music, the orientation of the pastor, the art, the architecture, the novel raising of hands in the orans posture, the clapping and the talking and laughing etc. Is all of this growth or is most of this a deconstruction of the Mass?
LikeLike
Again we agree, but again, are we at risk of elevating our preferences. The orans position for the congregation has a very ancient history and is practised by the Orthodox, whose history goes back as far as our own; who says it is novel? In the West, perhaps, but the West is not, despite its habit of thinking so, the whole of Christendom.
Talking and laughing I dislike, but having been to church in parts of Spain and southern Italy, it is part of the culture there. As for music, well, again, the polyphony I love so much was once banned by the Church, as were settings of the Mass to music. I’d hate not to have Mozart’s Requiem – which is where we’d be if that ban had not been ignored so widely.
In terms of Latin and Greek, again, the Latin is a translation of the Greek, and one might have said in the second century it was a bad thing to press the beauty and flexibility of the Greek into the rigid framework of the Latin – but no harm came of it. I am not sure much will come of the vernacular Mass – although whoever thought of using the word ‘chalice’ in the recent version, has my displeasure resting on him. Jesus did not raise a ‘chalice’ he raised a cup! Ah, I see how easily I fall into it 🙂
LikeLike
Indeed so, my friend. I think we both know that obedience to the faith as taught (and I joined the Church of Rome – the west and not the east) never brings one soul to ruin. However many cases where disobedience did not bring a soul or a practice to ruin would perhaps pale in comparison to where it did precisely that? 🙂
As for polyphony, I am in total agreement again. But it does not mean that one should have introduced it until the Church approved. And now we have the silliest and most mundane, syrupy music destroying our ears at Mass along with many unrecognized instruments for use at Mass as well. The organ is still the only instrument that is approved for usage without a specific requirement for the use due to the music. But we have seen amplified guitars and drums et al since the New Mass. This Mass is sort of a chameleon of sorts and changes with every single pastor and community. One never knows what one will get when we walk through the door. How sad is that?
LikeLike
But again, this is how the real church, as opposed to the one we read about and construct in our minds, has always worked. Someone in Rome or a diocese has said x, and out there is the world, people have done y and z. When y and z turned out to be heretical – as with what Arius had been saying for some time, then the church acts and doctrine gets defined, But where it is something less – even something as horrid as modern music, then the church has tended to let us get on with it. Sometimes the results ain’t pretty – but then I guess there are folk who like recorders and an electric organ – myself NOT included.
LikeLike
Yes, but then disobedience should not be rewarded lest we no longer regard obedience as a virtue. Even though Padre Pio (one of my favorite saints) was opposed to the changes in the Mass and to his order, he sought an indult to avoid having to say it and it was granted – and the same pertaining to his habit and other rules of his order. That is obedience.
And on the other side of things, St. John of the Cross hated the change to the Latin Mass only as he was attached the Spanish Mass which he learned to say and thought much more beautiful than the Tridentine. However, in obedience, he changed and did what the Church commanded. There is not much that I will defend that goes agains law and order and that includes both in secular and religious order.
LikeLike
I think Newman’s point is that practice is much more varied than any rules, and that it is better to keep rules for matters of real importance. If we treat every rule as important, and act as though the language of the Mass is as important as the content, then we end by risking what we have – a general disregard for law. Yes, exceptional men will obey all – but if we act as though all will, we risk ending where we are close to now.
LikeLike
Your point is a good one about things that matter. But it precisely that precipice at which we find ourselves. Is it not the content of the Mass that has suffered from these changes? Has the poor translation of the Mass that I had to endure for years partly responsible for the emptying of the pews and confessionals and the utter disrespect and outright rejection of the teaching concerning the Eucharist? If so, it might be time to face the facts that practice does affect our beliefs as much as the actual teachings. For now, all of our teachings, it seems, are up for grabs and being argued or rejected without so much as an excommunication or a public rebuke. We were brought here by many things which the Church had no control over but even in the things which She did have control over have been given great leeway and sway such that the people no longer believe any of that Catholic cr*p anymore. I think we give these churchmen who have not only allowed but helped this situation become a crisis today too much credit. I see it in the same way I see it when our secular society allows felons to rob and steal and loot stores during a crisis without lifting a finger to prosecute or condemn them. It is abhorrent to me.
LikeLike
I really don’t think so. Or, at least it is more complex. I don’t assume priests changed things for bad reasons. As our society has grown less deferential and less inclined to do things because those things have always been done, there was a falling away. That happened, and would have happened whatever the Church had done. If the priests had thought keeping Latin would have worked to keep people, I doubt they’d have changed a thing.
Did the changes work, no, no more than keeping Latin would have. The huge changes working against the Church in the West are not matters to be resolved except through a true repentance of the heart.
LikeLike
I think you miss my point, my friend. It is not the Latin or any other non-essential, it is the fact that they were disobedient to Rome, not to me or my preferences. For my preferences are that if we are to regard the Council as legitimate then it is the teaching of Rome and yet the Novus Ordo has taken us into entirely defiantly new areas and were soundly rejected by the Council. It is not my preference of which I have been speaking but theirs. :-}
LikeLike
Newman’s point is that ‘Rome’ is a great deal less centralised than reading the rules might suggest.
Anglo-Saxons have a habit of writing few but good laws and sticking to them. Latins have the opposite habit. They write too many and end up deciding which to enforce and obey. This is confusing to us – so us our keenness to obey every law to them.
LikeLike
If sounds as if Councils are only convened to decide what suggestions they might make for the sake of our souls – but without any binding power or real consequence to our ignoring or defying them. If so, I might choose to ignore the Novus Ordo and many of the other documents from the last council as rules that they might not enforce should I have enough adherents to join with me.
LikeLike
Historically, Councils have only been called to resolve great issues. The last one is an exception, and I doubt will spawn many imitations 😊
LikeLike
Lets hope not – though they may use these synods in much the same way. 🙂
LikeLike
As they found at the last one, there are rules which can’t be ducked – good news.
LikeLike
I wish Obama and Holder would find that out as well. 🙂
LikeLike
Indeed – a dreadful pair.😡
LikeLike
A good place to leave us in total agreement, my friend. Enjoyed the banter, by that way. 🙂
LikeLike
Me too – always appreciate your company ☺️
LikeLike
* Above sentence should have read: “Another indult . . .” My word processor does not recognize the word and replaces it with the more appropriate word, insult. 🙂
LikeLike
I’d thought as much 🙂
LikeLike
BTW, C. Just came across this quote from Newman in an article today on the Remnant. What do you make of it, in regards to the Novus Ordo and the many changes the Church has seen post Vatican II?
Cardinal Newman, in his sermon on “The Religion of the World,” warns us against the modern-day ‘ape of God’, the ‘world religion’, the ‘counterfeit of the Truth’ only “partially evangelical, built upon worldly principle, yet pretending to be the Gospel, dropping one whole side of the Gospel, its austere character, and considering it enough to be benevolent, courteous, candid…though it includes no true fear of God, no fervent zeal for His honour, no deep hatred of sin, no horror at the sight of sinners, no indignation and compassion at the blasphemies of heretics, no jealous adherence to doctrinal truth, no especial sensitiveness about the particular means of gaining ends… no sense of the authority of religion as external to the mind: in a word, no seriousness, – and therefore is neither hot nor cold, but (in Scripture language) lukewarm.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
A good representation of Newman’s views, I think.
Thanks for it.
LikeLike
I thought you might. The article is a reprint of a speech Michael Matt gave to Angelus Press earlier this year. It is worth a read as well I think. There is much to ponder within his words.
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/1357-old-mass-old-faith-new-mass-new-faith-the-raison-d-e-tre-of-a-catholic-traditionalist
LikeLiked by 1 person
“They had done what we all do from time to time, approached the issue with our minds made up,”
The true scientist knows it is improper to do this and so it must be with religious studies. But after a while one’s mind does get made up. At that point debate is futile.
LikeLike
Yes, it can be so – but hopefully, evidence may change our minds from time to time?
LikeLike
Yes, new evidence must be considered certainly in science. Old evidence is valid too. I keep up in paleontology news and it seems new discoveries are being made very often changing long held evolutionary theories. The true scientists don’t deny the evidence but relish in the new evidence and find it thrilling and eye-opening. Certainly a form of scientific method protocol should be applied to religious studies as in any field of intellectual pursuit. On the other hand, as you suggest, we cannot dismiss the old evidence just because it is ancient but is relavant in our time in the progression of faith through the ages.
For example, in my youth I used to think I was immortal or at least mortality was far from my mind ( same for most of us I think). Now at 65 , I think differently. All my doctors show me the “evidence” of the approaching sunset at every visit.
LikeLike
Yes, that last comes to us all, alas.
LikeLike
I guess yall already know that invoking good brother Newman would inspire me to come out and mention that he was a raging homosexual. How come the holy See hasn’t revoked his priesthood? After all, the CC is against homosexuality.
LikeLike
That would be because, like all good Christians, it does not act on slander and zero evidence – it’s a Christian thing, Bosco.
LikeLike
You made my morning good brother. Now that I have stopped rolling on the floor in wild laughter, may I surmise that you never read any of good brother newmans lovey dovey letters to his buddy? Even as we speak, they are on top of each other. maybe you didn know that.
LikeLike
I have read not only those, but many others. It is an odd, modern, and mainly American habit to read sex into everything.
LikeLike
It is an advertising ploy to use sex to sell a product. Ive seen McDonald ads using sex to sell soda pop. yes, americans are obsessed with sex.
Now, don’t insult my intelligence by telling me that those love letters weren’t love letters. You cathols already have pushed the boundries of commom human intel by saying god commanded you to make graven images. Do push your luck by trying to make Newman be a straight. newman is about as straight as a dogs hind leg.
LikeLike
Newman was asexual – a concept which may be beyond you
LikeLike
How beautiful the faith of the devotee.
LikeLike
VATICAN CITY (AP) — The Vatican’s economy czar says the Holy See’s finances are in better shape than he thought, revealing that hundreds of millions of euros were kept off the balance sheet and that reforms are forging ahead to make the Vatican “boringly successful.”
In a frank essay published Thursday in Britain’s The Catholic Herald, Cardinal George Pell outlined his vision for a Vatican that follows international accounting standards, is transparent and audited externally, and uses its proceeds to help the poor.
Pope Francis was elected in 2013 on a mandate to get the Vatican’s finances in order after years of scandal at its bank and waste in its administration. Pell was among the most vocal in calling for reform, and was named by Francis to head the new Secretariat for the Economy to oversee the process.
Money. The root of all evil. wHEN THE DISIPLES NEEDED QUICK CASH, THE HOLY SPIRIT PROVIDED IT. oUR NEEDS ARE MET. When I say our, I mean the saved, not the unsaved. The NT is for the saved. its useless for religions and other unsaved folks.
I wish I had a nickel for every time some idolatrous cath has said that the catholic church is a pilgrim on earth. The NT says the saved are pilgrims, just passing thru this wicked earth. So, the cathols try to jump the bandwagon. After all, the CC claims to be gods true religion, it must also be a pilgrim. A pilgrim with scandal after banking scandal after money scandal after scandal. A pilgrim with a state run religion with headquarters and a flag and a jail. This pilgrim passing thru this world of woe even has a freakin postage stamp. I don’t envy catholics. They try to keep a straight face while they call their state run religion the only way to heaven. Uh, don’t mind all the graven images. Just step over the devotees laying on the ground befor them.
LikeLike
I don’t think you read the article. Still, I guess you think the sick and poor in Africa pay for health care and education – oh, no, stop, that would be paid for by the Catholic Church.
LikeLike
its paid for by the devotees. Catholic devotees are people. People want to help other people. But still, no matter how much good they do, the unsaved wind up in the lake of fire. Then what was it all worth?
The good news is…Jesus stands at the door and knocks.
LikeLike
Yes, but those aid agencies are staffed by Catholics and paid for by them – don’t see Calvary Chapel out there.
LikeLike
Calvary Chapel is a legal name on the side of a building. The folks who gather there do support missionaries in far off places. We just don’t wave our dirty rags around like false religions are want to do.
LikeLike
I’d guess on nothing like the scale of the RCC.
LikeLike
St. Bisto, I was worried, thought you had returned to la la land. Well, I’m glad to see you’re up and att’em.
“The good news is…Jesus stands at the door and knocks.” Thanks but we all already answered and He came right in.
LikeLike
The bigger the dirty rag, the more sure your salvation? hell has enlarged its mouth. Compliments of false religions.
Say good brother David, whats Jesus doing in your house? Did he bring a little alabaster graven image of a Tammuz to put on your mantel?
LikeLike
Again, you bring the idea of works-based salvation in, put it on the table and claim you found it there. Faith alone – but real faith produces works. What are yours?
LikeLike
I think my works are spreading the gospel. Im sure of it. Plus, I tithe , but not as much as I should.
LikeLike
Yet, on your argument, the RCC should have no money to do this because the Spirit should provide? Do you actually read your own comments?
LikeLike
Oh St. Bisto, oh St. Bisto, He left us His Body and Blood, so that He could be with us everyday. What more could anyone want.
LikeLike
I read my comments. I, Bosco the Great, approve any and all of my comments. The CC is Babylonian idol worship. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.
LikeLike
I think the onus lies on you. I have consistently snowed why you are wrong, whilst you have failed to make any connection to Babylon.
LikeLike
your best rebuttal was… the pine cone was there when we moved in. Your pleas that the dagon fish hats are just a coincidence is a laugh.heres a coincidence you can wish away… the pinecone staff of bacchus,,,, the pope has a pine cone staff and to top it off he has a twisted cross on it. All the while wearing a dagon fish hat. A picture is worth a thousand denials.
LikeLike
You misread my post. it shiws, with picture just for you that the two types of hat are quite different. You have never told us what this skull and crossbones thing is.
LikeLike
If anyone can prove me wrong , I will go away and never come back. I say that the catholic cult is nothing mor3e than Babylonian pagan idol worship. Prove me wrong and ill go away and never come back.
LikeLike
I am a Catholic, I don’t worship idols. i have never met a Catholic who did. Don’t let the door handle hit you on the way out.
LikeLike
Ok, you don’t worship idols. Good. I never thought you did. But adoring Mary is idolatry. Adoring the pope is idolatry. Im guilty of idolatry. that’s how easy it is.
LikeLike
Again, you invent a straw man and knock it over. Where on earth in any authoritative document does it say we ‘adore’ Mary or and the Pope? I do think you ought to stop making things up.
LikeLike