Here is How "Conservative" Francis Catholics like Mike Lewis become Liberal Catholics and finally Modernist Heretics
- Updated December 30, 2019
Mike Lewis of the Where Peter Is website who is an apologist for Communion for adulterers and pachamama worship has finally shown me how so-called "conservative" Francis Catholics become first liberal Catholics and finally Modernist heretics.
The answer appears to be that they reject Thomistic realism and it's principle of non-contradiction as applied to the infallible teachings of the Church and believe that Cardinal John Henry Newman's speculations on "Development of Doctrine" as well as his nominalist philosophy which denies the principle of non-contradiction are more infallible than the actual infallible Church teachings against Communion for adulterers and idolatry.
Lewis explains Newman's nominalist thinking:
"Newman himself spoke of the need to understand that doctrine might not DEVELOP [my capitalization] in a way that we can anticipate or in a way that our preconceived notions are prepared to accept."
(Where Peter Is, "The shock of developing doctrine: A response to Fr. Dwight Longenecker, May 22, 2018)
Although, I respect Cardinal Newman as a historian for his chronicling of St. Athanasius as well as the Arian crisis and use his historical work as good history, it appears that there is a problem with his philosophy which make problematic his theological idea of development of doctrine.
According to two scholars, Newman's philosophy appears to be tinted with nominalism.
Cardinal Johannes Willebrands who took part in Vatican II said:
"Newman was in fact a convinced individualist. The individual always supersedes the universal, the individual is the only reality... This doctrine is at odds with the doctrine of Saint Thomas Aquinas and amounts to nominalism."
(So, What's New About Scholasticism? How Neo-Thomism Helped Shape the Twentieth Century," Last chapter, books.google.com)
Also, scholar Jay Newman wrote:
"When he tells us that common nouns stand for what is non-existing and speaks of the mind's gift 'of bringing before it abstractions and generalizations, which have no existence, no counterpart, out of it.' Newman is letting us know that he has rejected the metaphysical 'realism' of the scholastics in favor of the 'nominalism' of the British empiricist school."
(The Mental Philosophy of John Henry Newman, Page 40)
Nominalism according to Wikipedia is defined as the philosophy that there "is a concept in the mind, rather than a real entity [objective truth] existing independently of the mind."
In terms of truth and Catholic doctrine nominalism means Church teachings can change or GROW that is "DEVELOP," but in Newman's system the growth can't contradict the previous accepted doctrine, but THE BIG QUESTION IS how can one who rejects Thomism as well as realism by being a nominalist then seriously speak of contradiction.
Even more important, "Development of Doctrine" is a speculation that apparently contradicts the infallible teaching of Vatican I.
The important American theologian Fr. Joseph Fenton who did his doctoral dissertation under the great Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange and was a collaborator with Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani explained the problem with this speculation:
"The statement that our Catholic dogma or doctrine is the growth or the development of the seed planted by the Apostles would seem to be seriously objectionable. According to the Vatican Council [Vatican I] the Holy Father has been empowered to teach infallibly, NOT the GROWTH or the DEVELOPMENT [my capitalizations] of the primitive Christian teaching, but the 'revelation delivered through the Apostles, or deposit of Faith' itself."
(American Ecclesiological Review article, 1953)
It appear that the so-called "conservative" and "moderate" Francis Catholics like Lewis by thinking Newman's "Development of Doctrine" is infallible dogma when it is only speculation by someone who was tinted with the false philosophy of nominalism eventually become liberal Catholics and finally Modernist heretics by rejecting the Law of Non-contradiction.
Dante scholar and Editor in Chief of The Catholic Thing Robert Royal explained that Lewis and all Communion for adulterers Francis Catholics need God to "repeal the Law of Non-contradiction":
"Pope Francis... listens to... Cardinals Maradiaga, Marx and Kasper. The last in particular seems more and more incoherent and yet as he tries to explain precisely why marriage is indissoluble and yet those in a second sexual relationship - though not a marriage - may be absolved and return to receiving Communion. The only way that's possible is if God repeals the Law of Non-contradiction. I don't think that's on his to-do list."
(Fr. Z's Blog, "Good comments on Card. Burke and a serious translation error," November 10, 2014)
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Mike Lewis of the Where Peter Is website who is an apologist for Communion for adulterers and pachamama worship has finally shown me how so-called "conservative" Francis Catholics become first liberal Catholics and finally Modernist heretics.
The answer appears to be that they reject Thomistic realism and it's principle of non-contradiction as applied to the infallible teachings of the Church and believe that Cardinal John Henry Newman's speculations on "Development of Doctrine" as well as his nominalist philosophy which denies the principle of non-contradiction are more infallible than the actual infallible Church teachings against Communion for adulterers and idolatry.
Lewis explains Newman's nominalist thinking:
"Newman himself spoke of the need to understand that doctrine might not DEVELOP [my capitalization] in a way that we can anticipate or in a way that our preconceived notions are prepared to accept."
(Where Peter Is, "The shock of developing doctrine: A response to Fr. Dwight Longenecker, May 22, 2018)
Although, I respect Cardinal Newman as a historian for his chronicling of St. Athanasius as well as the Arian crisis and use his historical work as good history, it appears that there is a problem with his philosophy which make problematic his theological idea of development of doctrine.
According to two scholars, Newman's philosophy appears to be tinted with nominalism.
Cardinal Johannes Willebrands who took part in Vatican II said:
"Newman was in fact a convinced individualist. The individual always supersedes the universal, the individual is the only reality... This doctrine is at odds with the doctrine of Saint Thomas Aquinas and amounts to nominalism."
(So, What's New About Scholasticism? How Neo-Thomism Helped Shape the Twentieth Century," Last chapter, books.google.com)
Also, scholar Jay Newman wrote:
"When he tells us that common nouns stand for what is non-existing and speaks of the mind's gift 'of bringing before it abstractions and generalizations, which have no existence, no counterpart, out of it.' Newman is letting us know that he has rejected the metaphysical 'realism' of the scholastics in favor of the 'nominalism' of the British empiricist school."
(The Mental Philosophy of John Henry Newman, Page 40)
Nominalism according to Wikipedia is defined as the philosophy that there "is a concept in the mind, rather than a real entity [objective truth] existing independently of the mind."
In terms of truth and Catholic doctrine nominalism means Church teachings can change or GROW that is "DEVELOP," but in Newman's system the growth can't contradict the previous accepted doctrine, but THE BIG QUESTION IS how can one who rejects Thomism as well as realism by being a nominalist then seriously speak of contradiction.
Even more important, "Development of Doctrine" is a speculation that apparently contradicts the infallible teaching of Vatican I.
The important American theologian Fr. Joseph Fenton who did his doctoral dissertation under the great Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange and was a collaborator with Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani explained the problem with this speculation:
"The statement that our Catholic dogma or doctrine is the growth or the development of the seed planted by the Apostles would seem to be seriously objectionable. According to the Vatican Council [Vatican I] the Holy Father has been empowered to teach infallibly, NOT the GROWTH or the DEVELOPMENT [my capitalizations] of the primitive Christian teaching, but the 'revelation delivered through the Apostles, or deposit of Faith' itself."
(American Ecclesiological Review article, 1953)
It appear that the so-called "conservative" and "moderate" Francis Catholics like Lewis by thinking Newman's "Development of Doctrine" is infallible dogma when it is only speculation by someone who was tinted with the false philosophy of nominalism eventually become liberal Catholics and finally Modernist heretics by rejecting the Law of Non-contradiction.
Dante scholar and Editor in Chief of The Catholic Thing Robert Royal explained that Lewis and all Communion for adulterers Francis Catholics need God to "repeal the Law of Non-contradiction":
"Pope Francis... listens to... Cardinals Maradiaga, Marx and Kasper. The last in particular seems more and more incoherent and yet as he tries to explain precisely why marriage is indissoluble and yet those in a second sexual relationship - though not a marriage - may be absolved and return to receiving Communion. The only way that's possible is if God repeals the Law of Non-contradiction. I don't think that's on his to-do list."
(Fr. Z's Blog, "Good comments on Card. Burke and a serious translation error," November 10, 2014)
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Comments
In an unrelated matter, another blogger noted Tradition holds that after the Resurrection, Christ first appeared to His Mother. However Francis' tendency is to cut the Blessed Mother out of the picture, and perhaps that's why he was so willing to elevate the feast of St. Mary Magdalen.
in which he admonished a Darwinian detractor for being far too harsh on the man and his new theory.....the strong suggestion he left was Darwin and the christian God could be reconciled. Nothing has attacked the christian faith at the roots more successfully than evolution. Newman had a chance to debunk it and he chose not to. There are other problems that Newman raises, but I just suggest a couple of things to consider, a traditional catholic at his time wrote that Newman was the most dangerous man in England and that many call him the father of Vatican ll is not comforting.