Replies

There is something about Protestantism or anti-Catholicism that makes those afflicted by both to become dishonest or just stupid.

You posted this:

“For as conveyed by Manning (and provided here), history is what Rome says it is,

It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.”

The problem is that this quote is clearly taken out of context because the very sentence before the quote is:

“And from this a fourth truth immediately follows,
that the doctrines of the Church in all ages are
primitive. It was the charge of the Reformers that
the Catholic doctrines were not primitive...”

This EXACT theme, “that the doctrines of the Church in all ages are primitive” is already highlighted on roman numeral page XXI of the same book (edition = London: Longmans, 1865). You are entirely unfamiliar with the book and its contents aren’t you? What website did you lift the quote from without checking to see if it was even genuine or properly quoted?

Since Protestant anti-Catholics can’t be relied on to tell the truth or get the facts straight, here is the whole passage:

“4. And from this a fourth truth immediately follows,
that the doctrines of the Church in all ages are
primitive. It was the charge of the Reformers that
the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their
pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal
to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a
treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the
Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies
that voice to be Divine. How can we know what
antiquity was except through the Church ? No individual,
no number of individuals can go back through
eighteen hundred years to reach the doctrines of antiquity.
We may say with the woman of Samaria,
‘Sir, the well is deep, and thou hast nothing to draw
with.’ No individual mind now has contact with
the revelation of Pentecost, except through the
Church. Historical evidence and biblical criticism
are human after all, and amount at most to no more
than opinion, probability, human judgment, human
tradition.

“It is not enough that the fountain of our faith be
Divine, It is necessary that the channel be divinely
constituted and preserved. But in the second chapter
we have seen that the Church contains the fountain
of faith in itself, and is not only the channel
divinely created and sustained, but the very presence
of the spring-head of the water of life, ever fresh
and ever flowing in all ages of the world. I may say
in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It
rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness.
Its past is present with it, for both are
one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and
modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves.
The Church is always primitive and always modern
at one and the same time; and alone can expound
its own mind, as an individual can declare his own
thoughts.
‘ For what man knoweth the things of a
man, but the spirit of a man that is in him ? So the
things also that are of Grod no man knoweth, but the
Spirit of Grod.’ l The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the
Church at this hour.”

End paste of the actual quote rather than the deceptively edited Protestant anti-Catholic version.

Thus, we can see once again how Protestant commonly misrepresent things by falsely editing quotes. And it doesn’t surprise me that this quote apparently was first deceptively edited by William Webster - who does that sort of thing all the time. Nor does it surprise me that daniel1212 apparently never bothered to compare it to the original and has now posted it here. Same old, same old.

And now let’s move on to the Newman quote:

Here is the actual quote:

What has been said of History in relation to the formal Definitions of the Church, applies also to the exercise of Ratiocination. Our logical powers, too, being a gift from God, may claim to have their informations respected; and Protestants sometimes accuse our theologians, for instance, the medieval schoolmen, of having used them in divine matters a little too freely. Still it has ever been our teaching and our protest that, as there are doctrines which lie beyond the direct evidence of history, so there are doctrines which transcend the discoveries of reason; and, after all, whether they are more or less recommended to us by the one informant or the other, in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent.

End paste of the original quote untouched by the deceitful hands of Protestant anti-Catholics.

Here, by the way, is how the quote appears in a reader’s comment at Beggars All - the Pro-Protestant and strongly anti-Catholic website:

“...in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent.” — John Henry Newman, “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone’s Recent Expostulation.” 8. The Vatican Council http://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section8.html

posted here: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/08/canon-as-infallible-sacred-tradition.html

It is obvious that you took the quote - deceptively quoted - from Beggars All, or a website that used the same deceptively edited quote, and that you accidentally cut the ““...in” from the beginning of the quote. It is so obvious because you have exactly the same citation - word for word - and yet you have only the closing quote marks and not the opening quote marks.

Sometimes I’m not sure what is worse - that Protestant anti-Catholics are stupid or that they are deceptive. It has to be the deceptive part because that tends toward sinfulness. Stupidity is perhaps blameless.

There is something about Protestantism or anti-Catholicism that makes those afflicted by both to become dishonest or just stupid.

You are on your way to indicting yourself.

The problem is that this quote is clearly taken out of context because the very sentence before the quote is: “And from this a fourth truth immediately follows, that the doctrines of the Church in all ages are primitive. It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive...”

"Clearly taken out of context"? What in the world are you protesting in Roman reactionary reflex? You seem to think that if a Prot .quotes only part of a text (for brevity sake, as i did) then you must be dishonest if it is used against Rome. Yet here Manning is contending that the doctrines of the Church in all ages are primitive, which claim the Reformers examined and found wanting, and the recourse of Manning was to essentially claim that antiquity is what Rome says it is, which is what i invoked it for.

Nor does it surprise me that daniel1212 apparently never bothered to compare it to the original and has now posted it here.....What website did you lift the quote from without checking to see if it was even genuine or properly quoted?

I certainly did compared it to ensure it was teaching in context what i claimed, and you are wrong for asserting otherwise. For i have quoted this text numerous times on FR and often included the link, which is not some anti-Catholic (though anything that contains anything that impugns Rome is labeled such) we site, but the actual book as found on http://www.archive.org/stream/a592004400mannuoft/a592004400mannuoft_djvu.txt

...End paste of the actual quote rather than the deceptively edited Protestant anti-Catholic version. Thus, we can see once again how Protestant commonly misrepresent things by falsely editing quotes.

Thus, we can see??? Falsely editing quotes???" What we see is what loyalty to Rome can do. Vladimir, there is NOTHING in the quote you provided which teaches anything different than what i invoked it for!!! Manning claims the Church is its own interpreter of its history, thus in a real sense it has no antiquity as it "rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it..." Therefore the Reformers cannot be right.

But it is you who has erred in false charging me with dishonesty and false editing or being stupid, which is not the first time RCs has resorted to slander here and been exposed. It seems that some simply cannot allow anything that even seems to impugn Rome and so must resort to slander.

End paste of the original quote untouched by the deceitful hands of Protestant anti-Catholics.

posted here: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/08/canon-as-infallible-sacred-tradition.html It is obvious that you took the quote - deceptively quoted - from Beggars All, or a website that used the same deceptively edited quote, and that you accidentally cut the ““...in” from the beginning of the quote.

That is simply absurd, as "in all cases" does not change the meaning of the text in support of what i invoked it for, that the RC assurance of doctrine rests upon Rome's claim to veracity, and if anything, "in all cases" supports this. And i also only provided the link to the actual source thus you could read it!

Once again you are simply protesting against something that impugns Rome, while the fuller context does nothing to refute that. Newman is dealing with to the formal Definitions of the Church and to the exercise of logical and methodical reasoning by which to arrive at some conclusions ("What has been said of History in relation to the formal Definitions of the Church, applies also to the exercise of Ratiocination"), for he confesses that "no doctrine of the Church can be rigorously proved [or disproved] by historical evidence" and proceeds to state that

"in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent."

If you protest this then you must argue that "the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them" only applies to some doctrines, meaning they are to objectively search for evidence of some doctrines to determine their veracity, which would make them as an evangelical.

But while it is affirmed by Catholics that this means of ascertaining truth is valid in (fallibly) deciding to submit to the infallible authority of Rome, once he does so he is exhorted to simply implicitly trust Rome, as these approved writings state (and these excerpts are consistent with the context), consistent with Newman,

But mark well: having once found the true Church, private judgment of this kind ceases; having discovered the authority established by God, you must submit to it at once. There is no need of further search for the doctrines contained in the Christian Gospel, for the Church brings them all with her and will teach you them all. You have sought for the Teacher sent by God, and you have secured him; what need of further speculation? Your private judgment has led you into the Palace of Truth, and it leaves you there, for its task is done; the mind is at rest, the soul is satisfied, the whole being reposes in the enjoyment of Truth itself, Who can neither deceive nor be deceived. "Be convinced," says Cardinal Newman in his great sermon, "Faith and Doubt"-----"be convinced in your reason that the Catholic Church is a teacher sent to you from God, and it is enough."

Protestants seem to imagine that strength of mind consists in criticizing and disputing Christian doctrine. Catholics, on the other hand, think that true nobility of soul and greatness of mind are evidenced chiefly in believing mysteries above our capacity simply because the Church enunciates them to us; in thinking as she thinks, accepting what she accepts, and rejecting what she rejects.

He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church [infallibly at least] as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips. —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 ); http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/faith2-10.htm]

Thus once again, there is nothing in the larger quote (and RC complain my posts are too long) that is contrary to what i invoked the quote in support of, while your reaction is slander.

I am sure what is worse, that of RCs who are so blindly devoted to defending Rome against anything that disturbs their cherished view of the object of their devotion that they must charge anyone who exposes it as being deceptive or stupid, but in so doing they indict themselves and provide an arguments against Rome.

This is not the first time this has happened, as RCs see what they want in both Scripture and elsewhere, and an apology is in order, but i have yet to see one.