A series response to Michael Whelton’s book "Two Paths: Orthodoxy & Catholicism: Rome’s Claims of Papal Supremacy in the Light of Orthodox Christian Teaching"
The separation of East and West has been a painful scandal felt even by our blessed Mother (who reposed, remember, in Ephesus) and I continue to pray it may be healed by God's miraculous intervention. The situation is not helped by the Wheltons of this world leaving the Catholic church for spurious - and essentially emotional reasons fuelled by other scandals within. It is more troubling still to read of his contrived and mostly old and essentially protestant repudiations of the primacy of Peter or authority of the apostolic see. Thanks for your heroic efforts to tackle his long diatribe: you're doing a better job than I ever mustered when I read Pusey's desideratum contra Newman's treatise on Mary. The aded irony there was that Newman himself thought the declaration of the Immaculate Conception to be inopportune, but never demurred from the authority of the pope and council to make that declaration. Indeed he was fully obedient to it, even if he could never embrace the sort of consecration to Mary that de Montfort composed, given very understandable trouble with the implied theology of spiritual slavery in conflict with lifelong freedom of will. For my part, I am in Newman's camp on the latter score (though I would not have thought the pope, after having declared on papal infallibility, should have delayed any longer to declare this universal belief of the Church in Mary's immaculate conception.) My own approach is to relate myself to Mary as "bondservant" in the same way she regards herself as "willing handmaid" , for clearly she had no concept of a mere will-less slave since God was awaiting her decision and fiat. I still tend to oppose public endorsements of de Montfort's specific wording (though in translation); but even so, if papal authority ever required it (as pope John Paul nearly did with 'Totus Tuus' ) I would not leave the Church because of that.
Thanks for the kind remarks and for reading our Substack, Dr. Knight! It is indeed a painful scandal as you say. I agree about the spuriousness of Whelton's arguments and historical endeavors. Only because it has gained such popularity, like Dawkins's book The God Delusion, have I undertaken such a thorough reply.
I have read Pusey but not his criticisms of St. Newman. I am inclined towards your and Newman's view regarding the opportuneness of the definition: I am open to be wrong about it and dutifully submit to its authoritative affirmation.
Similarly (and a bit ironically), Whelton deceptively trots out Archbishop Kenrick as an opponent of papal infallibility at Vatican I. But the matter was much like St. Jerome submitting to the Pope's acceptance of the full canon of Scripture or Newman's submission on the Immaculate Conception even when he believed it was inopportune. As the Catholic Encyclopedia says:
>When Archbishop Kenrick of St. Louis returned to his diocese on 30 Dec., 1870, he made an address at the reception given him, in which he first gave the reasons that had decided his position at the council, as long as the question was open to discussion, and then closed with the declaration that, now the council had decided, he submitted unconditionally to its decree.
Kenrick disputed during the sessions when the question was open to debate, but when the Church ruled, he obeyed. There is nothing there for Whelton to use as ammo, so he left out the important details.
Long story, but not yet. Have a draft close to ready, but I might need to split it up or alter it. We’ll see. I will work to get it out sooner than later!
The separation of East and West has been a painful scandal felt even by our blessed Mother (who reposed, remember, in Ephesus) and I continue to pray it may be healed by God's miraculous intervention. The situation is not helped by the Wheltons of this world leaving the Catholic church for spurious - and essentially emotional reasons fuelled by other scandals within. It is more troubling still to read of his contrived and mostly old and essentially protestant repudiations of the primacy of Peter or authority of the apostolic see. Thanks for your heroic efforts to tackle his long diatribe: you're doing a better job than I ever mustered when I read Pusey's desideratum contra Newman's treatise on Mary. The aded irony there was that Newman himself thought the declaration of the Immaculate Conception to be inopportune, but never demurred from the authority of the pope and council to make that declaration. Indeed he was fully obedient to it, even if he could never embrace the sort of consecration to Mary that de Montfort composed, given very understandable trouble with the implied theology of spiritual slavery in conflict with lifelong freedom of will. For my part, I am in Newman's camp on the latter score (though I would not have thought the pope, after having declared on papal infallibility, should have delayed any longer to declare this universal belief of the Church in Mary's immaculate conception.) My own approach is to relate myself to Mary as "bondservant" in the same way she regards herself as "willing handmaid" , for clearly she had no concept of a mere will-less slave since God was awaiting her decision and fiat. I still tend to oppose public endorsements of de Montfort's specific wording (though in translation); but even so, if papal authority ever required it (as pope John Paul nearly did with 'Totus Tuus' ) I would not leave the Church because of that.
Thanks for the kind remarks and for reading our Substack, Dr. Knight! It is indeed a painful scandal as you say. I agree about the spuriousness of Whelton's arguments and historical endeavors. Only because it has gained such popularity, like Dawkins's book The God Delusion, have I undertaken such a thorough reply.
I have read Pusey but not his criticisms of St. Newman. I am inclined towards your and Newman's view regarding the opportuneness of the definition: I am open to be wrong about it and dutifully submit to its authoritative affirmation.
Similarly (and a bit ironically), Whelton deceptively trots out Archbishop Kenrick as an opponent of papal infallibility at Vatican I. But the matter was much like St. Jerome submitting to the Pope's acceptance of the full canon of Scripture or Newman's submission on the Immaculate Conception even when he believed it was inopportune. As the Catholic Encyclopedia says:
>When Archbishop Kenrick of St. Louis returned to his diocese on 30 Dec., 1870, he made an address at the reception given him, in which he first gave the reasons that had decided his position at the council, as long as the question was open to discussion, and then closed with the declaration that, now the council had decided, he submitted unconditionally to its decree.
Kenrick disputed during the sessions when the question was open to debate, but when the Church ruled, he obeyed. There is nothing there for Whelton to use as ammo, so he left out the important details.
Thanks for sharing. Was Part 9 published?
Long story, but not yet. Have a draft close to ready, but I might need to split it up or alter it. We’ll see. I will work to get it out sooner than later!
Thanks!
Anytime! Thanks for reading.