Pope Leo XIV announced on Sunday that he will proclaim St. John Henry Newman a doctor of the Church on Nov. 1, the Solemnity of All Saints.
“I will confer the title of doctor of the Church on St. John Henry Newman, who gave a decisive contribution to the renewal of theology and to understanding Christian doctrine in its development, in the context of the Jubilee of the world of education,” the pope said after celebrating Mass for the Jubilee of Catechists in St. Peter’s Square.
With the proclamation, Newman will become the 38th doctor of the Church, joining a select group of saints recognized for their enduring contribution to Catholic theology and spirituality. He is especially noted for his insights on the development of doctrine and the role of conscience.
A 19th-century English theologian, Newman was first a renowned Anglican priest before entering the Catholic Church in 1845 under the guidance of Blessed Dominic Barberi. Ordained a Catholic priest two years later, he founded the Oratory of St. Philip Neri in England and was created a cardinal by Pope Leo XIII in 1879.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
About our “understanding of Christian doctrine in its development”–and freeing ourselves of mutant signaling and insinuations during the past decade–in “The Development of Christian Doctrine” Newman appeals, in part, to a biological analogy whereby growth (“development”) is one thing, while corruption is another.
He writes:
“I venture to set down seven notes of varying cogency, independence, and applicability to discriminate healthy developments of an idea from its state of corruption and decay, as follows: “There is no corruption if it retains:
(1) One and the same TYPE [doctrine/natural law v. a disconnected degree of pastoral “accompaniment” devolving into accommodation],
(2) The same PRINCIPLES [the non-demonstrable first principle of non-contradiction v. neo-Hegelian interpretations of the ambivalent “time is greater than space”],
(3) The same ORGANIZATION [the received Barque of Peter as from a supernatural source v. natural religions more as expressions of unaltered human searching]
(4) If its beginnings ANTICIPATE its subsequent phases [the Incarnation/Creed/ Catechism/Veritatis Splendor v. normalization of “choices” in place of moral judgments, as in the homosexual lifestyle, etc.];
(5) Its later phenomena PROTECT and subserve its earlier [Veritatis Splendor/ Familiarus Consortio v. social science (?) as the source of alternative truths];
(6) If it has a power of assimilation and REVIVAL [Evangelization and inculturation v. incongruous amalgamation as with Amazonia/der Synodal Weg], and
(7) A vigorous ACTION from first to last…” [lively steadfastness v. the mess of constant change as the deepest rut of all].
Let us hope it is Newman’s WRITINGS that will inspire the Church Peter.
A great saint and example for non-catholics. Not so sure about his notions concerning “illative”, intuitive knowledge though.
By definition, we cannot prove “illative” knowledge, but it helps make sense of why we know that another person, even the Divine Persons, love us. We know the truth of this interpersonal love on many mysterious levels.
Try reading the Bible and everywhere there is the word “faith” replace it with “relationship.”
Faith or belief in the love of another person is more than math. Think also of the revealed fact that the Holy Angelic Persons love us. Happy Feast!
Thank you for remembering my Feast Day. Certainly faith, and beyond that, mystical knowledge, can provide men with certitude regarding religious matters. But Henry Neman’s illative knowledge was viewed as a natural human faculty.As such, it’s not faith or mysticism. It could be regarded as another human means of strengthening faith, but it would be fatal to the Faith to confuse it with a supernatural thing in itself. I think such ideas had a lot to do with the romantic atmosphere of the nineteenth century which, by confusing natural faculties with the supernatural, risked emptying the latter of its real, very distinct, reality.