If you’re correct about Newman “rewriting fundamental Catholic doctrines” then your problem with him is not simply a matter of personal taste but fundamental belief. And if that’s the case, is it fair to assume that he won’t be canonized? I would assume that the Catholic theologians who have the oversight of such matters are smart enough to recognize his errors. And if he is canonized, how does that square with the infallibility of the Church? After all, rewriting fundamental doctrines is no small matter regardless of the ecclesiastical body one belongs to.

Your continued disdain of Beckwith (at least
that’s how you sound to me) is interesting. You sound almost as dismissive of his reversion to Catholicism as many of his Protestant friends. Should we assume that because he’s a new revert he’s shallow, idealistic and hasn’t really grappled with the marrow of the Catholic faith? Should keep his mouth shut? It’s one thing to be told that the RCC is THE Church, but it’s quite another to see what some people think when someone actually swims the Tiber and is thrilled about it. Is the water really that cold? Again I ask, must one be a cradle Catholic before he’s the real deal?

By the way, I’m a Protestant who has for several years grappled with the claims of Catholicism. I’m encouraged when I run into a Catholic who’s genuinely concerned about my soul (they’re rare, unfortunately). But I’m mystified when I run into Catholics who act as though not only do I not get it, but they’d be just as happy if I didn’t.

Thanks for the head-up on Bellarmine, I’ll check him out.

Peace.

Really, you do have more options for assessing Catholic history and theology than the idealistic, romanticized ramblings a recent convert and a fellow who completely rewrote some of the most fundamental Catholic doctrines to make them more palatable to his sensibilities. My assessment is derived largely from primary and secondary historical sources rather than the agitprop of fresh converts and apologists. And Catholic history just doesn’t look like what it should if what Beckwith said is true.

By the way, I think Newmanism is boring because at the bottom, it’s little more than a series of word-plays and rhetorical games. So much of modern Catholic theology is a verbal minuet because of him. Now Robert Bellarmine, there was a real Catholic theologian. He actually told you what he thought and why.

Oh please. We have von Balthasar and at least two most recent Popes who cannot even be sure a single soul is in Hell, against what for almost all readers are the very clear words of Scripture. That would hardly fly at a megachurch, although I am not so sure about all the players at the ETS.

What I do think is quite true is that even if Beckwith rattles of a list of many brands of Evangelicals, they as a species or group actually are far more homogenous of belief as a group, since common belief is the very thing that defines Evangelicals, whereas with Catholics it is membership. THE CCC is wonderful if read through Evangelically-trained theological senses, but the liberal RC establishment can adhere to it and read it with a liberal and faith-deadening lens where it means most anything at all. Can Evaneglicals do this with the Bible? Sure, but I’d argue there is indeed a more clearly defined Evan. faith. J.I. Packer & Thomas Oden’s “One Faith” argues this point to effect.

If Beckwith is a neophyte Catholic and doesn’t really get it [the Catholic thing], and if Newman is just a clever bore, who’s the genuine article? Are all Evangelical converts so shallow? Must one be a cradle Catholic before he’s the real deal? And more on topic, are Beckwith and Newman so Biblically illiterate that we can so cavalierly dismiss them?

Joe, I honestly don’t think there’s any way out for the RCC without either dispensing with the infallibility claim so that it can reform its own dogma or retreating into 19th-C, Vatican I-style fundamentalism.

“It seems that evangelical Christianity is in almost the exact position that it lambastes the Catholic church for being in at the time of the reformation: biblically illiterate, strong arming culture, attributing things to Jesus that are not scriptural, building elaborate buildings and teaching the traditions of men as doctrine of God.”

Maybe not until after Christmas, but expect to see something along these lines at The Master’s Table before too long. Rose, you’re welcome at my blog anytime to drop some more of these jewels.