Cardinal Newman addresses the issue of Catholicism's extra-biblical doctrines in this fashion: "What if these 'new' doctrines were in fact, as Roman Catholics claimed, authentic developments from, rather than additions to, primitive Christianity?" So the question is on the table: are "specific Roman Catholic doctrines illegitimate accretions and additions, or [are] they authentic developments from scriptural and apostolic doctrines?"

The Catholic claim is made in the book that "the [Catholic] Church believes that God's revelation was completed once and for all in Christ." Cardinal Newman himself writes, "The Church does not know more than the apostles knew." However, though "the Apostolic Church was not 'conscious' of later dogmas does not necessarily mean that she was not unconsciously cognizant of them, in the sense that she had an implicit though not explicit knowledge of them." An illustration is given: "For example, St. Paul could hardly have understood what was meant by the 'Immaculate Conception', but if he had been asked, whether or not our Lady had the grace of the Spirit anticipating [preventing] all sin whatever, including Adam's imputed sin, I think he would have answered in the affirmative."

Cardinal Newman consequently evaluates Protestant thinking in this manner-since Protestants find in church history that "there are popes against popes, councils against councils, some fathers against others, the same fathers against themselves, a consent of fathers of one age against a consent of fathers of another age, the Church of one age against the Church of another age.they are forced, whether they will or not, to fall back upon the Bible as the sole source of revelation, and upon their own personal private judgment as the sole expounder of its doctrine" (emphasis mine). This latter statement becomes one of Cardinal Newman's chief issues of contention. Hence, he claims, "The Christianity of history is not Protestantism"; Protestantism is the Christianity of "the Bible as the sole source of Revelation" and Protestants themselves become "the sole expounders of its doctrine." Consequently, "to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant," he declares.

Cardinal Newman then, interestingly, also criticizes "the Anglican mind, which takes up a middle position, neither discarding the Fathers nor acknowledging the Pope." He points out that "scanty as the Ante-Nicene notices may be of the Papal Supremacy, they are both more numerous and more definite than the adducible testimonies in favor of the Real Presence" in the Eucharist. He then rebukes Anglicanism: "Are you not as a hypocrite, listening to [the Ante-Nicene Fathers] when you will, and deaf when you will not?"

Going further, Cardinal Newman's justification for evolved truth reads thusly: "Doctrines which are associated with the later ages of the Church were really in the Church from the first, but not publicly taught, and that for various reasons: as, for the sake of reverence, that sacred subjects might not be profaned by the heathen; and for the sake of Catechumens, that they might not be oppressed or carried away by a sudden communication of the whole circle of revealed truth." [I believe such reasoning is poor.]

Concerning the rise of infant baptism (the first clear mention of which is made by Irenaeus late in the second century), Cardinal Newman reasons thusly: "It would be natural indeed in any Christian father, in the absence of a [scriptural] rule, to bring his children for baptism, such in this instance would be the practical development of his faith in Christ and love for his offspring; still a development it is-necessarily required, yet, as far as we know, not provided for his need by direct precept in the Revelation [Scriptures] as originally given." Hence, "no one doctrine can be named which starts complete at first, and gains nothing afterwards from the investigations of faith and the attacks of heresy." [I would ask at this juncture, from A.D. 50 to 100, over the fifty years that the apostolic revelation was being recorded in the form of our New Testament, why were there no fathers thus concerned for their children, so as to then create an apostolic rule for them concerning infant baptism? Did fathers only begin to become concerned for their children after the New Testament was completed?]

Cardinal Newman then takes his reader one giant step further. Because an honest survey of Church history does reveal "popes against popes, councils against councils, [profoundly so in one case where an infallible General Council of the Church, Constantinople III, condemned an infallible Pope, Honorius, as a heretic] some fathers against others, the same fathers against themselves, etc.," there is a need for "an external authority to decide upon [those "developments"], thereby separating them from the mass of mere human speculation.This is the doctrine of the infallibility of the Church.," and at the heart of this doctrine lies the infallibility of the head of that Church, the Bishop of Rome. 1 Cardinal Newman reasons, "A political body cannot exist without government, and the larger the body the more concentrated must the government be. If the whole of Christendom is to form one Kingdom, one head is essential; at least this is the experience of eighteen hundred years. As the Church grew into form, do did the power of the Pope develop. We see before our eyes the centralized process by which the See of St. Peter became the sovereign Head of Christendom. [I would add a brief response to this point-St. Paul in anticipating this very issue of the necessity of a Supreme Head of the Church boldly declares of JESUS, "God placed all things under His feet and appointed Him to be Head over everything for the Church, which is His Body, the fullness of Him who fills everything in every way." (Ephesians 1:22-23) To any spiritually minded lover of God's Holy Word, the papacy then, becomes not a "further development" of this theme, but a subversion of God's holy intent.]

It was exactly on this issue that Cardinal Newman left the Church of England to become part of the Church of Rome. Rome's then longest reigning Pope, Pius IX (1846-1878), was pope when Newman made his move from Anglicanism to Catholicism, and the promulgator of two of its most controversial doctrines-the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary and papal infallibility. It is, therefore, interesting for me to note Cardinal Newman's terse observation: "It is not good for a Pope to live 20 years. He becomes a God [and] has no one to contradict him." 2 Pius IX had advanced papal infallibility in his 23rd year as Pope, using "deception, obfuscation and railroading." 3

One final quote from Cardinal Newman, concerning the Holy Scriptures, and then I wish to respond more fully to his thoughts-"We are told that God has spoken. Where? In a book? We have tried it and it disappoints; it disappoints us, that most holy and blessed gift, not from fault of its own, but because it is used for a purpose for which it was not given. The Ethiopian's reply, when St. Philip asked him if he understood what he was reading, is the voice of nature: 'How can I, unless some man shall guide me?' The Church undertakes that office; she does what none else can do, and this is the secret of her power."

recognize that any response, in order for it to be commanding and conclusive, must be authoritative. But where shall we find an authority respected both by Catholics and Protestants? Both Catholics and Protestants do agree on this one basic issue (as expressed in the introductory words of Cardinal Newman's essay) "that God's revelation was completed once and for all in Christ," and that if nothing and no one else ever was, surely the Holy Scriptures of the prophets (our Old Testament) and the Holy Scriptures of the apostles (our New Testament) are the infallible and inspired Words of our God. The dependability and sufficiency of the Living Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the infallibility and dependability of the written Word of our God, the Holy Scriptures, therefore become our authority to respond to the arguments of Cardinal Newman's essay. What then does the inspired Holy Scriptures say about our Lord Jesus Christ and about the Scriptures themselves?

Concerning Our Lord Jesus Christ

The Holy Scriptures, God's authoritative Word, state (in no uncertain terms) the utter sufficiency of the work of our Lord Jesus Christ to save us and to keep us. Jesus Himself had pointedly declared of Himself, "No one comes to the Father except through ME. " (John 14:16) When Jesus cried out from the cross, "It is finished" (John 19:30), the atonement for the sins of the world was indeed completed. Jesus' words, "It is finished," literally, by the force of the words used, meant it was fulfilled, ended, concluded, completed, consummated, perfected, attained, accomplished, done, finalized, fully realized, wholly executed, completely discharged-with its infinite results continuing throughout all time and eternity (the impact of the perfect tense of the Greek word tetelestai ).

Therefore, in St. Peter's words, "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under Heaven given to men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12) There is, therefore, but "one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus who gave Himself as a ransom for all men.." (1 Timothy 2:56) Therefore, for the blessed Mother of our Lord to be deemed a necessary part of God's redemption (as co-redemptrix, and co-mediatrix, as we are now hearing) is to insult the finished work of Jesus Christ and to deplete that holy sufficiency. And, in the words of Pope Boniface VIII, "for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pope [is] altogether necessary for salvation," 4 is to seriously erode the foundations of our most holy faith, and undermine the footings upon which God's holy Church is built. Those evolved Catholic doctrines that in any way obscure the sufficiency of the work of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot and must not, therefore, be viewed as further developments of apostolic truth, but as serious deviations from that truth from which sincere believers in Christ are compelled to flee. Consequently, St. Paul was compelled to instruct us in the Galatian letter that trust in Christ alone is our hope of eternal salvation (Galatians 3:8-14, 26-29). So insistent is St. Paul on this good news of CHRIST ALONE, he declares that "even if we or an angel from Heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" (Galatians 1:8) So much for any "further developments" in the gospel message! Paul sounds the same note in his Colossian letter declaring, "there is only Christ, and He is everything," and warning us, "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition. rather than on CHRIST . For.you are COMPLETE IN HIM who is the Head over all power and authority." (Colossians 2:8, 10) No words could be clearer; and these are the inspired and infallible words of our Mighty God!

Concerning The Holy Scriptures

The Holy Scriptures, themselves the inspired Word of our God, claim for themselves a sufficiency and a completeness that must not in any way be impaired by additional conflicting "revelation," or else it should be found that God Himself had contradicted Himself . 5 Furthermore, the Holy Scriptures vest in those who read its pages, the ability to understand its clear and simple message by the power and illumination of the indwelling Holy Spirit, who Himself inspired those very Holy Scriptures to begin with!

St. Paul defines the Holy Scriptures in these grand words: " All Scripture is God-breathed [inspired] and is profitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16) Concerning the sufficiency of Scripture, we are further admonished, "Every word of God is flawless; He is shield to those who take refuge in Him. DO NOT ADD TO HIS WORDS, OR HE WILL REBUKE YOU AND PROVE YOU A LIAR." (Proverbs 30:5-6)

Speaking about "the very words of God," St. Paul in Romans 3:2-4 declares, "Let God be true, and every man a liar." Therefore, where theologians, apologists and Church Fathers contradict God's Holy Word, there they are found to be liars. Where Councils and creeds deviate from the plain statements of God's Holy Word, there they are found to be liars. Where popes or reformers, Protestants or Catholics, are in conflict with God's Holy Word, there they are revealed to be liars. Apostolic truths must be upheld in the glory that God Himself has given them. St. Paul had declared to the Ephesians, "The whole counsel of God." (Acts 20:27) St. Paul had written to the Colossians concerning "the commission God gave me to present to you THE WORD OF GOD IN ITS FULLNESS.." (Colossians 1:25), "so that [you] may have the FULL RICHES OF COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING, in order that [you] may know the mystery of God, namely Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." (Colossians 2:2-3) It is obvious that if more inspired information were coming from Heaven, the early Apostles knew nothing about it, for Jude speaks of "the faith, that was ONCE AND FOR ALL entrusted to the saints." (Jude 1:3) And the conclusion to John's Revelation may well sound a warning concerning the whole of the New Testament apostolic revelation-"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.." (Revelation 22:18-19)

Concerning Any Private Interpretation

The concerns the Catholics express regarding no Scripture being "of any private interpretation" must be seriously looked at. Cardinal Newman speaks with concern of those who "are forced, whether they will or not, to fall back upon the Bible as the sole source of revelation, and upon their own personal private judgment as the sole expounder of its doctrine."

First of all, what exactly does Peter mean by his statement so sincerely quoted? The New International Version (NIV) translates Peter's words thusly: "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. FOR prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:20-21) One thing is clear, the purpose of Peter's words was not to erode our confidence in the clarity and plainness of the apostolic revelation and induce us to become dependant on the forthcoming theological systems of men for our understandings. That is not what Peter is saying. He is simply commenting on the sovereign element present in the prophetic writings of the Old Testament writers. That is all.

The Apostles, in all of their writings, fully expected their words to be understood and believed and obeyed. They did not major in obscurities. In every place, Paul had " fully proclaimed the Gospel of Christ." (Romans 15:19) The Corinthians had been "enriched" in every way.in all [their] knowledge.." (1 Corinthians 1:5) Among them, Paul had "laid a foundation" as an expert builder.for no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Christ Jesus." (1 Corinthians 4:10-11) Paul had likewise prayed for the Ephesians "that the eyes of [their] heart may be enlightened in order that [they] may know." God's truth. (Ephesians 1:18) The Colossians also had heard God's message "and understood God's grace IN ALL ITS TRUTH." (Colossians 1:6) Paul's spiritual son, Timothy, had "known the Holy Scriptures, which [were] able to make [him] wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." (2 Timothy 3:15) Peter gloried in God's "Divine Power [that] has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of Him who called us .." (2 Peter 1:3) The apostolic revelation is neither incomplete revelation, nor is it obscure!

If we take away men's confidence in the clarity of God's Holy Word and bring them into dependency on men's word, and if we take away men's confidence in the Holy Spirit and bring them into dependency on a theological system, and if we take away men's confidence in the sufficiency of the saving work of our Lord Jesus Christ and bring them into a dependency on anything or anyone else-HOW EVER SHALL WE BE VIEWED BY OUR GOD IN THAT GREAT DAY? I fear, we shall not be viewed as true Christians at the Judgment Seat of Christ!

What then about all of the doctrinal issues that men have wrestled with down through the ages? What about baptism? With all due respect for Cardinal Newman's reasonings, the Scriptures are plain. If one has a pair of eyes to read with, the matter is not complicated. Over the fifty years of apostolic writing, no development took place concerning baptizing babies. And, what about the nature of God? Let it be sufficient to say that Scripture teaches that we have but one God-the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and when theologians began to debate over "persons" or "modes," that simplicity was lost. And concerning Jesus-Scripture simply declares He is God and He is man; and anything beyond that can only bring one down into the mire. And concerning salvation-Scripture is clear-we are saved by the grace of our merciful God through the redeeming work of our Lord Jesus Christ, and anything beyond that can lead only to grievous error.

In conclusion, the paramount issue really is THE SUFFICIENCY OF JESUS CHRIST, THE SUFFCIENCY OF HIS HOLY WORD, AND THE SUFFICIENCY OF HIS REVEALING SPIRIT. Indeed, in the essay's own words: "God's revelation was completed once and for all in Christ," for, as Cardinal Newman states, "The Church does not know more than the Apostles knew."

[ A concluding observation: The importance of the above considerations lies not only in providing an authoritative response to Rome's claims, but also to warn various Protestants of the seriousness of their discontent with the Holy Scriptures alone and their unwise dependencies on the writings and teachings of the Reformers and the Fathers. These are ours to read and to enjoy, but never can they be placed on the same level as God's Holy Word!]

1 The Sixth Ecumenical Council, Constantinople III (A.D. 680-681), condemned Pope Honorius as a heretic, for his monthelite (Christ had one will) understandings. (The Council had concluded that Christ had two wills-a human will and a divine will.) In the 13th Session of the Council, Honorius' documents were ordered to be burned. In the 16th Session the assembled bishops declared: "Anathema.to the heretic Honorius.." The report of the Council to the Emperor declared: "Honorius, formerly bishop of Rome [had been] punished with exclusion and anathema." In its letter to Pope Agatho, the Council declared it had "slain with anathema Honorius." Pope Leo II confirmed the decrees of the Council, declaring that he too "anathematized Honorius." The Seventh General Council likewise affirmed Honorius' anathema. The Papal Oath, taken by each new pope from the Fifth to Eleventh Century "smites with eternal anathema.Honorius.." In the lesson for the Feast for St. Leo II in the Roman Breviary, the name of Pope Honorius occurs among those excommunicated by the Sixth Synod. With such proof, no honest historian could question the fact that Honorius, the Pope of Rome, was condemned and anathematized as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Thus, as Rome claims, an infallible Rome pope was anathematized by an infallible Ecumenical Council. Little wonder, then, that Protestants opt to cleave alone to the truly infallible Word of God, the Holy Scriptures!
2 TIME, September 4, 2000, p. 64
3 TIME, September 4, 2000, p. 64
4 Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctum, 1302
5 We could well bear the thought of councils contradicting councils and popes contradicting popes and fathers contradicting fathers, BUT WE CANNOT ACCEPT THE THOUGHT THAT GOD SHOULD CONTRADICT HIMSELF!

Cardinal Newman refers to the Matthew 16:16-19 Scripture as germane to the Catholic concept of papal supremacy and to the consequential idea of the supremacy of the Roman Catholic Church. The Washington Post recently reported: "Pope John Paul II sought today [October 1, 2000] to repair damage to relations with other religions caused by a recent Vatican document that reasserted the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church. drafted by the congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Church's authority on doctrine.to halt the 'so-called theology of religious pluralism' that would put Catholicism on an equal level with other religions.the document, like Vatican II, declares that 'the only Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church.'" (emphasis mine).

We can seriously doubt that Jesus had Rome's claims to supremacy in His mind when "Simon Peter answered, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God' [and] Jesus replied, 'Blessed are you Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by My Father in Heaven, and I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven.'" (Matthew 16:16-19)

Two interestingly different words are used in the original text of this Scripture, which words become the basis for Jesus' "play on words" in this passage: "You are Peter [ Petros ], and on this rock [ petra ] I will build my Church.." "Petros" is a common noun meaning "a piece of rock," or "stone." It is used in Homer of Ajax throwing a stone at Hector ( llliad, VII, 270 ) and of Patroclus hiding in his hand a stone ( llliad, XVI, 734 ). "Petra" (feminine form) is likewise a common noun, but one meaning "a rock, as distinguished from a fragment of stone (petros)." It is used of "a rocky peak ." In Homer ( Odessey , IX, 243), the rock ( petra ), which Polyphemus places at the door of his cavern, is a mass which twenty-two wagons could not remove; and the rock ( petra ) which he hurled at the retreating ships of Ulysses, created a tidal wave in the sea, enough to drive the ships back toward land ( Odyssey, IX, 484). Plainly stated, "You are Peter-a stone , a piece of the rock-and on this bedrock I will build my Church.."

Had Jesus intended to build His Church on Peter himself, He would simply have stated: "You are Peter, and on you I will build My Church.," but that was clearly not His intention. The "bedrock" upon which Jesus would build His Church was that which had transformed Peter, that which had been given to him by a divine visitation from the Father-the transforming revelation of Jesus: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Consequently, Jesus would say, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by My Father in Heaven.on this [bed] rock I will build My Church.."

The Church of our Lord Jesus Christ is built upon a revelation from Heaven, upon that very illumination which came from the Father to Peter about Jesus: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Consequently, the burning issue in the first century was not "what think ye of Peter?" but rather, "what think ye of Christ? " And that issue remains germane today; for where men and women have received this revelation of "Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of the living God"-upon that bedrock our Lord Jesus Christ builds His Church. The true Church is neither built upon a man nor upon a religious system; the true Church is-and always has been-built upon a revelation-a revelation of who Jesus is!

Jesus continues: "I will give you the key of the Kingdom"-and these keys Peter used on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:36-39 to open the door of eternal salvation to the Jews , and again with John in Acts 8:14-17 to open the door of eternal salvation to the Samaritans , and again in Acts 10:44-48 to open the door of eternal salvation to the Gentiles. The further statement, "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven." is not Peter's prerogative exclusively. For in Matthew 18:1, 18-20, Jesus, addressing all disciples, declared to them, "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven" (verse 18), and this His followers do whenever they gather in His name and pray to the Father, in unity in that holy name (verses 19-20).

For two thousand years, the true Church of our Lord Jesus Christ has always, ever, only been those men and women, boys and girls, Catholics and Protestants, Jews and Gentiles, who have genuinely been made living members of Jesus Himself, "baptized [not by man, but] by one Spirit into one Body" (1 Corinthians 12:13). And this true Church is a Church headed up by Jesus Himself, for "God placed all things under His feet and appointed HIM to be head over everything for the Church, which is HIS BODY, the fullness of HIM who fills everything in every way!" (Ephesians 1:22-23). Amen!