When I was received into the Catholic Church on the feast day of SS Peter and Paul (there was reasons, into which I will not go, as to why then and not at Easter) I solemnly swore that:
I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.
I was not asked to say what I believed the Catholic Church was; it was taken for granted that during what has been a long journey, I had come to a determination that this church in which I stood to make that promise was within the Catholic Church. For some years I had stood where Newman had recommended in his Discourse 11 to Mixed Congregations:
“Be convinced in your reason that the Catholic Church is a teacher sent to you from God, and it is enough. I do not wish you to join her till you are. If you are half convinced pray for a full conviction, and wait until you have it”
Newman declared: ‘No one can be a Catholic without a simple faith, that what the Church declares in God’s name, is God’s word, and therefore true.’ Until I was in that position, until I came to see that for all its faults, the Catholic Church was the Church founded by Jesus, I could not profess what I professed that June evening; I waited, as Newman recommended.
As Newman put it: ‘faith implies a confidence in a man’s mind, that the thing believed is really true; but, if it is once true, it never can be false.’ I might, although I pray not, lose my faith; but I do not regard myself at liberty to redefine what the Catholic Church is in order to reconcile the daily reality of it with a construct of it in my mind, derived from my study of its history. The Church is the Church, and I either love my Mother as she is, or forsake her: I cannot redefine her or relocate her because something of her outward garb and manner sits poorly with me Who am I to judge my Mother?
Newman was cutting about those who claimed that it was reading the Bible which led them to disbelieve the claims of the Church:
No; Scripture did not make them disbelieve (impossible!); they disbelieved when they opened the Bible; they opened it in an unbelieving spirit, and for an unbelieving purpose; they would not have opened it, had they not anticipated—I might say, hoped—that they should find things there inconsistent with Catholic teaching. They begin in self-will and disobedience, and they end in apostasy.
It is not my part to determine what is and is not authentic Catholic teaching. The Church has done that. Were I to turn to the Church and say to it, and myself, that since it does not profess what I, myself, have divined to be authentic Catholic teaching (and show all the proofs I had), I owe it no obedience because it is not the Church, then I am already embarked on that road Newman tells us ends in apostasy. However much I absolve myself by telling myself that it is not the Church which I disobey, that I have found the real Church elsewhere, it is my self-will at work.
Newman did not write as an abstract theoretician. It is plain that after he converted, the English Catholic Church had not the slightest idea of how to use him and his gifts, and it was not long before he was formally delated to Rome for heresy for his pamphlet: On consulting the Faithful in matters of Doctrine. Unlike his critics, Newman knew his history. Accused of saying that there had been a failure of the teaching authority of the Church, when he had said that there had been a temporary suspension, he showed that there was:
no real failure of the Ecclesia Docens while the decree of Nicæa against Arianism remained the official expression of its ruling on the side of orthodoxy. Nay, more; he had not maintained, as it was assumed, that even after the Council the Coetus episcoporum in its corporate capacity was heretical, but the Bishops as individuals failed to vindicate the orthodox doctrine. The fact that the bulk of the Bishops were for a time individually disloyal to the official teaching of their own body was no more a denial of the infallibility of the Ecclesia Docens than the fact that a Pope might personally hold an unorthodox opinion would be a denial of the infallibility of his ex cathedrâ definitions
That last remains, for me, the crucial point. That a Pope might hold an unorthodox opinion is, no doubt, to be deplored, but that it makes him not the Pope, is an opinion to be avoided. The Magisterium remains what it is, and the Truth that it has proclaimed remains the Truth, whether every bishop perceives it or not.
As Newman observed:
The truth is, that the world, knowing nothing of the blessings of the Catholic faith, and prophesying nothing but ill concerning it, fancies that a convert, after the first fervour is over, feels nothing but disappointment, weariness, and offence in his new religion, and is secretly desirous of retracing his steps
and he was not wrong, for it is not uncommon for converts to be so full of fervour that they find the reality of the Church irksome, full, as it is, of the sort of people they have just left in their former Church. But Newman was right:
no one should enter the Church without a firm purpose of taking her word in all matters of doctrine and morals, and that, on the ground of her coming directly from the God of Truth
That is her word, not my interpretation who who is and is not the Church. That is declared to all Roman Catholics in unmistakable terms.
You must come, I say, to the Church to learn; you must come, not to bring your own notions to her, but with the intention of ever being a learner; you must come with the intention of taking her for your portion, and of never leaving her
I would maintain that among ‘our notions’ is the idea we can tell the Church that she is not whom she appeared to be, but is hidden in some corner where her publicly-recognised Ministers are seen as impostors. It is best to take this advice:
He who has begun a good work in you, will perfect it; He who has chosen you, will be faithful to you; put your cause into His hand, wait upon Him, and you will surely persevere
All Along the Watchtower 
Great post. I think that the following excerpt (or something similar) should be printed off and distributed throughout the parishes of Western Europe:
‘It is not my part to determine what is and is not authentic Catholic teaching. The Church has done that. Were I to turn to the Church and say to it, and myself, that since it does not profess what I, myself, have divined to be authentic Catholic teaching (and show all the proofs I had), I owe it no obedience because it is not the Church, then I am already embarked on that road Newman tells us ends in apostasy. However much I absolve myself by telling myself that it is not the Church which I disobey, that I have found the real Church elsewhere, it is my self-will at work.’
LikeLike
Thank you. It is, as some may find it, a hard saying; but, to quote old Luther ironically, here I stand, I can do no other 🙂
LikeLike
🙂
LikeLike
Outstanding post, C. And furthermore, even as a protestant, it seems to me that we should learn from our betters, and predecessors in the faith.
There is a reason for all of us to study what has been said, and most of the basics, for all of us but especially in the West, come from the Church of Rome. Too many forget that our churches were founded to try to rectify what wise men saw as defects in Rome’s teaching, and usually founding a new church was not really their mission. Reform was.
LikeLike
Quite so Neo. Obedience when the Pope is doing what I approve of, is the easiest thing in the world; but for me the test is what do I do when that is not the case?
LikeLike
It’s always the case, really. It’s easy to do what you want to, the difficulty is doing what is right, especially when you want to do something else. It’s something most of us learn as we grow up, but some don’t.
It’s not even confined to religion. In business, i often phrase it as the harder right, instead of the easier wrong.
LikeLike
Quite correct, Neo. It is very easy to agree with those who agree with you – why, even Liberals manage that 🙂
LikeLike
In lockstep no less. 🙂
They make church discipline look very weak indeed.
LikeLike
They do indeed. 🙂
LikeLike
🙂
LikeLike
We often forget that ‘obedience’ is one of the most prized of moral virtues that can be exercised by the Christian soul: for it is the suspension of your will for the Will of God or one who has been placed in that privileged position by proper authority. One need not look far to see the value that the saints placed on this virtue: http://whitelilyoftrinity.com/saints_quotes_obedience.html
The only exception to virtue that I have ever seen is that if one is asked to do what is objectively immoral or known absolutely as an act of disobedience counter to the defined teachings of the Church then one is within their rights to dissent. In that way we preserve our first and foremost obedience which is to God and by extension to the Church. Should we not know the actual teachings or moral law which God has ordained for us, then we should err on the side of obedience as the obedient soul will be praised by God while the authority who rules that soul with error will be held to account for his apostasy.
This becomes confusing when, as in our own time, we have those whom we can say have received their authority over us and yet give opposing views as to what we are to do or believe. Do I obey my priest, my bishop or my pope – all of which may give me direction that is opposed to the other. It is why education in our faith and then faithful obedience to the Church and Her teachings is more important today that it may have been in the past. For one can never go wrong as long as their intent is to do that which the Church Herself has taught and has urged us to do.
An excellent post C and much to think about as today obedience seems to be a lost virtue that is paid little attention to. Yet it is probably the most important of virtues should one claim any desire to acquire humility which is the foundation for any worthwhile spirituality that one might seek.
LikeLike
Thank you, my friend. Yes, it can be extremely difficult at times, but on most matters, it is best to err on the side of obedience. You outline well the set of circumstances where one must do otherwise.
LikeLike
Thank you C.
In my link you will find an especially good quote by St. Bernard who seemed to be thinking of Bosco when he wrote it: “He who is his own master is a scholar under a fool.”–-St. Bernard 🙂
LikeLike
I did notice that – and oddly enough a not dissimilar thought came to me 🙂
LikeLike
I thought you might. 🙂
LikeLike
I resemble that remark
LikeLike
For once, we are in agreement.
Come on across the Tiber Bosco – you know you want to. You spend more time thinking about the Catholic Church than most people I know. What is the hidden desire there Bosco?
LikeLike
I do not think that Paul IV is saying that each individual can make up their own mind on such a matter; that way lies anarchism and chaos.
LikeLike
Yes, I have read it, and I am as amazed as Geoffrey at the idea that Paul IV was a believer in the concept of individual conscience – something not formulated until years later. If this reading were correct, we should be rewriting the history of the middle ages.
LikeLike
All you need to do is to show me that medieval schoolmen anticipated the ideas of the Enlightenment and you have a great career in academia ahead of you. I find no trace of any schoolman saying that the individual was competent to judge the Pope, yet this is what you are saying.
LikeLike
Is he talking about individuals or a body of recognised leaders of the Church?
LikeLike
So, he is not talking about you or I. I do think Geoffrey has a point here, and that you are reading this is a modern context not envisaged by Paul IV or St RB.
LikeLike
My case is that the medieval church did not sanction the right of an individual to do as you are doing. If you can show me any case of a Pope doing so in response to someone citing Paul IV, I shall be happy to be shown to be wrong.
LikeLike
I think it very dangerous when we invoke saints as our example fir disobedience. It may be they have a Divine insight. I claim no such thing, and would beware of saying because a saint did x, that makes it right fir me to do so.
LikeLike
This is a matter of authority. Do you possess the authority to say that the Pope is a heretic? No, you are not authorised to do so. Those who possess this authority do not agree with you.
LikeLike
Not at all. Councils exist and have the authority to judge who is and is not the Pope. When one does so, we are bound to accept its authority. It is not bound to accept ours.
LikeLike
When a properly-convened Council declares the Pope not the Pope I believe the Council.
LikeLike
I have no objection whatever to the above, QVO, but one needs to be on verifiably solid ground on such a decision. As to who is the rightful ‘court’ to assemble and declare such an offense is true is left to one’s imagination. In my mind, the Church has done this already in the past and it seems to be the Church, by the Grace of the Holy Spirit, that in retrospect might render a judicial judgment at a time when all the facts and arguments for and against can be presented.
As an aside, I do not discount that in confusing, trying and turbulent times such as these that the Holy Spirit might (and I emphasize ‘might’) see a schism or a faction emerge for such reasons that we might not understand at our particular moment in history. The reason for this would to preserve the faith and morals of the Universal Church until such time that the Church regain Her balance and rid Herself of those who are fit for Her hierarchical offices. Such would be an act of Holy Prudence and protection that might be expected by the working of the Holy Spirit.
That said, an individual who acts alone or with a small number of others will have to make his/their judgment as you obviously have already have done, which is much riskier than the aforementioned patience that might be required of the Church to seal the leaks and put the Barque of Peter back on course. If you are certain – then, one must ask if you have presented your case for each and every instance through the channels given to every member of the Church through the Code of Canon Law. Their is recourse given us. If you have tried and failed and are still certain that your case is valid and compulsory by your own (well-formed) conscience then you may say that you did all you could do and that there is nothing left for you but to separate from the visible Church until such time as your conscience can recognize that the recognized visible and the invisible Church are once again the same and indistinguishable. My guess is that you will not see a reconciliation of this type during a few lifetimes. It is an historical process that may take many centuries to right.
But by all means, be obedient to your conscience, if and only if you are certain that your conscience is well informed and your facts in the individual cases are provable and will not be listened too by the Church after exhausting your rights as a member of the Catholic Church.
LikeLike
That is your obligation to abide by conscience which is formed by understanding. One need only be certain that they have done all they can to come to their best understanding of right and wrong and then to pursue one’s conscience on the matter. That is the only way one can navigate (even if in error) without the stain of serious sin on their soul.
LikeLike
Unless one is quite certain that one’s conscience is better formed than that of the Visible Magisterium of the Church, then one is bound to question whether it possesses the authority of the latter. If one decides one knows better than the Church, then that is a grave, and in my view, erroneous assumption which leads only to schism.
LikeLike
Not at all. You would be right to say, had you the evidence, that x was fornicating; but were you to say that meant he ceased to be a bishop you would be making a judgment you are not authorised to make.
Being suspected of heresy and being guilty are two different matters. If your evidence and argument are right, you should pursue your case through the proper authorities. The Church is not a debating society where anyone can say the Pope is not the Pope. If you have a case, make it.
LikeLike
No, they were not, which was why a Council was needed. The laity have no power to declare a bishop heretical, or to depose him.
LikeLike
None of which changes the fact that the laity had no authority to judge him, and did not do so.
LikeLike
He can, but if the jury returns another verdict and he carries on shouting murder, what then?
LikeLike
Quite so, C. And one might also ask what is it that I am being asked to believe that is against the teachings of the Church or what immorality am I being asked to commit? It seems to me that at the level of layman we are to be true to our commitment and vow to hold all that the Catholic Church teaches: and that She cannot teach error or immorality is a large part of that belief. So some deep soul searching seems to be in order for QVO. He might also think very hard about what the outcome of spreading scandal is to his soul as well. If there is a beam in the Church’s eye then I prefer that the Church deal with it. If it is a beam in my eye, then it is up to me to deal with that. Continual self-examen is lauded by the Church because, in regards to conscience, no one is better qualified to perfect the understanding necessary than the one doing the personal examination. That applies as well to those we might feel necessary to throw our stones at. Let the Pope and the Bishops worry about their own souls and all will be well. 🙂
LikeLike
I agree. There is no point taking a vow then deciding that oneself, the arbiter of all that the Church believes. If, as he ought, he has consulted his confessor, he will have been given good advice. If he has not, then he must.
I hope he will follow the links to what Newman wrote. I like him a great deal, he has such zeal, but that can lead one astray. I would tremble to say I can say who is the Pope. Those charged with that grave responsibility knew all about this man and judged him fit to stand and elected him. For me, there’s an end of it. If I think he’s not a Catholic, I need to think again.
LikeLike
And thus we try to work our our salvation with fear and trembling.
I too, do not want to dampen his zeal. I would only ask that he understands all of the consequences of that which he is saying: not the least being the effect his words might have on those who are considering the Catholic Church and might find their salvation upon the Barque of Peter.
LikeLike
It is indeed. The idea that the vast majority of Catholics have been following the wrong Pope for fifty years is tantamount to saying, either that God has allowed millions of souls to be led astray, or that there is a small, select group who, alone, are true Catholics; both are to utter words damaging to any enquirer after the truth.
LikeLike
That is my fear as well.
It is with some trepidation that I entered into these talks as I supposed that some would see it as vindication of QVO and others might see the condemnation of QVO. I only want to point out that this situation that QVO is in is only to be solved by himself or (if he is lucky enough to have one) a good spiritual director. I pray that he can find such and spend much time in contemplative prayer before he publicizes alleged scandal.
LikeLike
I concur, and had the same doubts.
LikeLike
Some of us older folks do understand how the brilliance of zeal sometimes blinds the eye to prudence.
At my age, all I wish for is a happy death; a clean conscience and a deep and abiding love of God. I prefer to change myself rather than the Church the world or my neighbor.
LikeLike
Yes, yes indeed, I can only concur entirely.
LikeLike
If we follow your logic, God is allowing millions of souls to be lost every year.
LikeLike
So, all those Cardinals who, alone possessed the authority to eject him knew less than you do? That seems a remarkable conclusion.
LikeLike
You seem to be saying that those who’s conscience is not affected will not get the same treatment you afford for yourself by following yours. Silence is certainly an option unless you can answer what violation of conscience the Pope or the Bishops are asking you to commit. Their good example or poor example is not ipso facto compelling to another’s conscience and if they are obedient to their conscience and the understanding that they have been given, will all be just fine.
LikeLike
You are presuming your conscience is properly formed and unaffected by original sin.
LikeLike
I must now retire for the night. I shall pray for you even more than usual.
LikeLike
Silence never violates conscience unless by your silence you are serving to condone a moral evil such as abortion or mass killings. I have yet to see your list of moral evils compiled by these men that will lead many to hell. If prayer with people of other faiths is it you have no idea the intent or the nature of the soul of the one who prays. Are his prayers condoning another religion or is simply praying for their souls which we are urged to do. I would hope the latter might be the case.
LikeLike
Excellent Post. I too found what you have stated. It is a long journey, much is too large to take in at once, but must come when the Lord gives you the wisdom to see, why it is not only true, by why it is necessary.
It took me 15 or more years to see why Mary was necessary to make the truth unchanging. Protestants belief on Jesus taught me that Mary was necessary to keep Jesus as a human too. True human and true God, I see in Protestant mostly True God.
St Augustine is a good teacher and a guide to follow into the Catholic Church. I know that Protestants claim him too, but St. Augustine was true Catholic.
LikeLike
On first glance at all of the posts that have been written since I was last on the blog, it looks as though there’s been another bout of defining ‘catholic’, ‘church’, ‘orthodoxy’ etc…
I was very interested in learning of the Coonan Cross Oath whilst I was in India.
S.
LikeLike
1192 Sacred images in our churches and homes are intended to awaken and nourish our faith in the mystery of Christ. Through the icon of Christ and his works of salvation, it is he whom we adore. Through sacred images of the holy Mother of God, of the angels and of the saints, we venerate the persons represented.
“I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.”
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Choose today whom you will believe. Repent and be ye saved
LikeLike
God does not want us to worship graven images – we don’t. But, of course, Bosco, if your new spirit is saying God hates all images and wishes to destroy all sculptures and statues of any sort, do let us know and we can warn all museums and art galleries that you and your hammer are coming.
LikeLike
Poor reasoning good brother. I expect better form you.
LikeLike
The reasoning is plain. If, as you say, God wants no graven images of any sort, why are you not breaking up statues? God means us not to worship graven images, We don’t, so there is no problem – except in your head.
LikeLike
Newman and St John were mentally and spiritually in love; sharing a long-term same-sex relationship. They were inseparable. They lived together for over 30 years, like a married husband and wife,” said human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, who has studied the evidence of Newman’s homosexual orientation.
See here:
http://z6.co.uk/dwpk3z
“Newman wrote in his diary about Ambrose’s love for him: ‘From the first he loved me with an intensity of love, which was unaccountable.’ He later added: ‘As far as this world was concerned, I was his first and last,’” added Mr Tatchell.
“Newman also stated that St John had come to him as the angel Raphael came to Tobias, as Ruth to Naomi.
Yes, better make him a catholic saint. Now you can pray to him. Hope he hears you above the sound of crackling fire.
LikeLike
Bosco, like the homosexual activist, you seem to think that any close relationship has to be sexual; how odd – but typical. I have actually worked on Newman’s papers and diaries, and on other papers from that time, and there is not the slightest evidence that there was any sexual relationship whatsoever. Tatchell has not worked on anything, he simply advocates man-boy love because he wants to lower the age of consent.
LikeLike
Takes one to know one.
LikeLike
That was why I am surprised you take the side of an advocate of paedophilia.
LikeLike
Most people think Rock Hudson was the ladies man of ladies men. If you went in to study Newman as a saint, you will over look his love letters as love letters. You dont want to believe it. You are the realist in this blog. Im surprised at you. You know as well is i know that homosexuality is the norm for catholic priests. Celibacy is abnormal and only abnormal people agree to it. Of course they dont remain celibate, as we all know. Its a cruel joke played upon the faithful catholic.
LikeLike
Bosco, I have held those letters in my hand. I have also worked for thirty years on Victorian history. The way Newman writes is very common, men often signed letters as he does to St John. There is not the slightest evidence of any sexual activity of any sort in Newman’s entire life, and no historians has produced any.
Once more, it seems your new spirit is attracted to lies. Could that be because its Father is the Father of lies?
LikeLike
A packet of excellent, well-attested advice for pilgrims conscious of their journey
LikeLike