Quadriga Cassiani, Please!

I Thought I Understood Doctrinal Development... I Didn't
Gospel Simplicity | 23 Sept. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48IuL9i3KlM

12:54 Prooftext for Newman's principle:

And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things that were concerning him
[Luke 24:27]
Example of this principle applied:
For these things were done, that the scripture might be fulfilled: You shall not break a bone of him
[John 19:36]
Which is mystical exegesis of:
In one house shall it be eaten, neither shall you carry forth of the flesh thereof out of the house, neither shall you break a bone thereof.
[Exodus 12:46]
And of:
They shall not leave any thing thereof until morning, a nor break a bone thereof, they shall observe all the ceremonies of the phase.
[Numbers 9:12]

"Thereof" and "of him" differ in English, because English masculines are automatically males, usually human, and a lamb would be "it" in English. Not so in Hebrew.

13:43 The Reformers did not invent literal reading.

What was the hallmark of the Church was not an exclusively mystical reading, it was a mystical also reading.

I'm all for "ark of the covenant" having in each OT occurrence a mystical reference to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

I'm not for, and Newman wasn't for denying that the genealogy of Genesis 11 adds up to Abraham born in 292 after the Flood in Masoretic and Vulgate, 1070 in a correct LXX, 1170 in an edition of the LXX, 942 in some manuscripts of the LXX, arguably bases for Julius Africanus' manuscript of Vetus Latina. Oh, Julius Africanus and St. Augustine didn't get their love for literal exegesis on this point from the Reformers.

Multiple meanings doesn't mean "spiritual meaning only" ... if anything it means the opposite.

"without 13:53 spiritual ex exegesis we can kiss the 13:57 Trinity and other dogmas of the faith 14:00 goodbye now this is a bold claim but it 14:03 has been somewhat vindicated by more 14:05 recent scholarship at least with the 14:06 Trinity specifically Rowan Williams the 14:09 former Archbishop of Canterbury has a 14:11 groundbreaking work on Arius and in it he 14:13 argues that Arius was in fact kind of the 14:15 more literal reader of scripture whereas 14:17 people like athanasius and Arius' other 14:19 opponents were a bit more imaginative in 14:22 their interpretations"

In fact, this is taken pretty straight from Newman's own History of the Arians of the IVth Century.

Now, that work was re-edited with a variation after Newman converted.

The work you read is actually not a peace of authorised Catholic theology as such, it was published before Newman converted, and it was written and published from the standpoint of the Anglican converting to Catholicism, not from the standpoint of the Catholic.

That these are different can be seen from my own case. The Lutheran who converted to Catholicism decided the case of Caerularius very quickly, like Caerularius was basically a vassal rebelling against his liegelord the Pope. Not much better than the Bohemian King rebelling against the Holy Roman Emperor. That's why, in 2006, and after dissatisfaction with antipopes Wojtyla and Ratzinger I was ready to ask "what if local bishop is the Petrine office, like Palamas thought?" In 2009, I returned to Roman Catholicism, having found Orthodoxy a dead end, and even then at first to the FSSPX on the theory that they have (and I think they do have) an ecclesiology not very different from the Orthodox.

Now (as of lately) I am pretty much somewhat more able to trace the papacy through centuries like IV and V, as opposed to "primus inter pares" views of those Popes.

So, my view of the matter when I was a Lutheran ready to convert, and my view now as a Catholic, are not the same.

This book by John Henry Newman was not by "John Henry Newman the Catholic" (received and instructed by the Church), it was by "John Henry Newman the Anglican who was ready to convert to Catholic" ....

This is often forgotten equally by people who want to use "development of doctrine" as a cop-out for Old Earth Creationism and people who want to totally ditch Newman altogether because of this.

I'm not totally trusting either the judgement of Rowan Williams nor the initial one of John Henry Newman on Trinity being strictly dependent on going beyond the literal reading.

16:30 I would say that Papal or at least Roman infallibility has a very literal early exponent. I think it's St. Irenaeus.

20:57 I did for my part not ignore another book by Newman, or two.

History of the Arians of the IVth Century
Apologia pro Vita Sua

Indefectibility and institutional visibility are literal hallmarks of the Church Jesus founded as per a literal interpretation of the NT text. These would be mystical interpretations of the OT texts, in the sense that the Catholic Church physically speaking doesn't seem to be identical to Israel, but see this one:

And I will remember my covenant with thee in the days of thy youth: and I will establish with thee an everlasting covenant.
[Ezechiel (Ezekiel) 16:60]

Fulfilled in Matthew 28:16—20. Jews might find it hard to pretend God already established an everlasting covenant on Sinai, since that is at odds with Ezechiel saying He will do so in what was in Ezechiel's day still upcoming future.