Where does the Pope get his authority?

[Behold]

Sounds like that's the path you're on. Rather than listen to the Church founded by Christ,

You just accused me of being on the "devil's path" when in fact your cult is created by deception.

Your cult has murdered millions of people.

Read about the "Cathers".....as your CULT, committed "genocide" against these Christians.

MURDERED THEM, because POPE Innocent 3, directed them to MURDER people...

"Murder". "Genocide'.... = The Cathers". at least 700,000 of them were MURDERED by the "cult of Mary".

Are you unable to comprehend.... that Jesus never gave Mary the exalted position, that your "cult of mary", has given her?

The NT, that you obviously dont read, has 13 Epistles in it, that are created by Paul, and not once does Paul "elevate" the "mother of God" as your cult does.

The idea of "perpetual virgin" is CATHOLIC teaching that is based on the "goddess Diana" teaching that teaches that "Diana' was a perpetual virgin, and has a Throne in heaven.
"ascension of Mary".. ( Mary flew to heaven). is a very recent, CATHOLIC Created nonsense. = '1950

on, and on and on.......

So, you are the literal theological end product of "cult of the Virgin" deception, and nothing more.
-

 

[Augustin56]

You just accused me of being on the "devil's path" when in fact your cult is created by deception.

Your cult has murdered millions of people.

Read about the "Cathers".....as your CULT, committed "genocide" against these Christians.

MURDERED THEM, because POPE Innocent 3, directed them to MURDER people...

"Murder". "Genocide'.... = The Cathers". at least 700,000 of them were MURDERED by the "cult of Mary".

Are you unable to comprehend.... that Jesus never gave Mary the exalted position, that your "cult of mary", has given her?

The NT, that you obviously dont read, has 13 Epistles in it, that are created by Paul, and not once does Paul "elevate" the "mother of God" as your cult does.

The idea of "perpetual virgin" is CATHOLIC teaching that is based on the "goddess Diana" teaching that teaches that "Diana' was a perpetual virgin, and has a Throne in heaven.
"ascension of Mary".. ( Mary flew to heaven). is a very recent, CATHOLIC Created nonsense. = '1950

on, and on and on.......

So, you are the literal theological end product of "cult of the Virgin" deception, and nothing more.
-
View attachment 46183

You have been blinded by lies and desception. You will be very surprised, sooner or later. Much more intelligent, but intellectually honest Protestants, including well-known pastors, have converted to Catholicism. But they never do it out of ignorance. They do it because they found the truth and realized they had bought into error, like you.

Here are some conversion stories (I can provide many, many more, if you like) from the Coming Home Network, an organization designed to assist Protestants converting to the Catholic Church:

Church of Christ Minister: How a Church of Christ Minister Became Catholic - Lawain McNeil - The Coming Home Network

Evangelical Minister:

Justin Hibbard - Former Evangelical Minister - The Coming Home Network

Share via: Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email More Justin Hibbard grew up in a Seventh Day Baptist congregation, but spent time in a number of different Evangelical communities over the years.

chnetwork.org

Methodist Minister: Matt Gerald - Former Methodist Protestant - The Coming Home Network

Pentecostal Minister:

A Oneness Pentecostal Minister Becomes Catholic - The Coming Home Network

Share via: Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email More Formation and Family History I was born into a Catholic family in May of 1953, baptized as a baby, went on to do

chnetwork.org

Seventh Day Adventist Minister: How a Seventh-day Adventist Minister Became Catholic - Norman bin Yazid - The Coming Home Network

Presbyterian Minister:

A Presbyterian Minister's Journey to Catholicism - Dean Waldt - The Coming Home Network

Share via: Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email More As a young Christian, Dean Waldt wanted to serve the Lord with his life, but his first experience of ordained ministry left him

chnetwork.org

Evangelical Seminary Professor:

An Evangelical Seminary Professor Becomes Catholic - Dr. Jason Reed - The Coming Home Network

Share via: Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email More Dr. Jason Reed’s desire to follow Christ led him to pursue academic study in theology and philosophy. He went on teach those disciplines

chnetwork.org

Southern Baptist Preacher: Trey Plummer - Former Southern Baptist Preacher - The Coming Home Network

Former Baptist Minister:

Dr. Ian Murphy - Former Baptist Minister - The Coming Home Network

Share via: Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email More Dr. Ian Murphy returns to the show, having recently written his memoir, Dying to Live: From Agnostic to Baptist to Catholic. Ian grew up

chnetwork.org

FourSquare Pastor: A Foursquare Pastor Who Started Agreeing With the Catholics - Kenny Burchard - The Coming Home Network

There are many, many more (132 pages) of conversions you can browse through, if you can get past your prejudice, here:

Conversion Stories Archives - The Coming Home Network

chnetwork.org

 

[Behold]

Much more intelligent,

"sticks and stone".,......Mr. Catholic.

Got that?

Listen...

in 1950, the "cult of the virgin", decided that "Mary, flew to heaven".

Was that in a UFO< or did she get on Muhammed's White Horse? ??????????

And you believe it., because your mind is owned by this denomination. @Augustin56

= That's on you.

 

[Augustin56]

"sticks and stone"., little carnal catholic.

Got that?

Listen...

in 1950, the "cult of the virgin", decided that "mary, flew to heaven".

Was that in a UFO< or did she get on Muhammed's White Horse?

And you believe it., because your mind is owned by this denomination. @Augustin56

= That's on you.

Why don't you find out what the Catholic Church actually teaches, and why, rather than listen to her enemies who don't mind lying?

 

[Behold]

Why don't you find out what the Catholic Church actually teaches, and why, rather than listen to her enemies who don't mind lying?

You need me to teach you some Catholic Theology?

Sure, i can do that for you.

1950

In 1950, Pope Pius XII declared the Assumption of Mary official dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church teaches that the Virgin Mary "having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory."

 

[Augustin56]

You need me to teach you some Catholic Theology?

Sure, i can do that for you.

1950

In 1950, Pope Pius XII declared the Assumption of Mary official dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church teaches that the Virgin Mary "having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory."

Let me see if I can explain this to you properly. It's something that was always taught and believed, and was formalized in 1950. The Church sometimes formalizes something that was always believed in order to remove doubt or confusion that may come up. The Assumption wasn't something the Church made up out of whole cloth. In fact, there were parishes as far back as a millenia and a half that were named after the Assumption.

So, what is the doctrine of the Assumption? The Assumption is the doctrine that says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her. Some people think Catholics believe Mary “ascended” into heaven. That’s not correct. Christ, by his own power, ascended into heaven. Mary was assumed or taken up into heaven by God. She didn’t do it under her own power.

The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, “after the completion of her earthly life” (note the silence regarding her death), “was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven.”

The possibility of a bodily assumption before the Second Coming is suggested by Matthew 27:52–53: “[T]he tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.” Did all these Old Testament saints die and have to be buried all over again? There is no record of that, but it is recorded by early Church writers that they were assumed into heaven, or at least into that temporary state of rest and happiness often called “paradise,” where the righteous people from the Old Testament era waited until Christ’s resurrection (see Luke 16:22, 23:43; Heb. 11:1–40; 1 Pet. 4:6), after which they were brought into the eternal bliss of heaven.

 

[Behold]

Let me see if I can explain this to you properly. It's something that was always taught and believed,

"Mary flying to heaven"....was not "taught" by a NT Bible verse .

= "The Ascension of Mary".... was not taught by PETER, or PAUL, or JUDE< or MARK, or JOHN< , etc, etc.

So, what you are doing is the common Catholic "bait and switch"..= whereby you switch the BIBLE, for.. "our church fathers" and "the Catholic Teaching says"., as if they are CO-Equal.

So, that is DENIED by God.
That is VOIDED by the Holy Spirit.
THAT is strictly defined as "cult of the Virgin", Theology....= ONLY>.

 

[Augustin56]

"Mary flying to heaven"....was not "taught" by a NT Bible verse .

= "The Ascension of Mary".... was not taught by PETER, or PAUL, or JUDE< or MARK, or JOHN< , etc, etc.

So, what you are doing is the common Catholic "bait and switch"..= whereby you switch the BIBLE, for.. "our church fathers" and "the Catholic Teaching says"., as if they are CO-Equal.

So, that is DENIED by God.
That is VOIDED by the Holy Spirit.
THAT is strictly defined as "cult of the Virgin", Theology....= ONLY>.

Well, I didn't correct you before because I thought perhaps you were being cute. Mary didn't "fly" into heaven. She was "assumed."

The Bible is NOT the sole rule of faith, nor does it claim ANYWHERE in its pages, that it is so. That is a man-made doctrine.

The Bible is a tool of Christ's Church, created by Christ's Church, and was preceded by Christ's Church. It is one of the two main methods of conveying the Word of God, but not in a vacuum. It must always be interpreted as a whole, through the oral teachings of the Church (see 2 Thes 2:15), and through the living Magisterium, that has Christ's authority. Without that, it's just a crapshoot. The Bible was never meant to be a do-it-yourself book, where you create your own doctines based on your own personal interpretation, regardless of education. Why do you suppose there are literally tens of thousands of different-believing, man-made Protestant denominations (and counting) today? That cannot be the fullness of truth Christ gave to the world. As Gal. 1:8 says, But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

As Gal. 1:8 says, But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!

Who is "we"?

 

[quietthinker]

well guys....do you think AK47's will resolve the matter? cuz yer interactions are about as friendly as running through a torn bush!

 

[Augustin56]

Who is "we"?

Human beings.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Human beings.

St. Paul when writing authoritively, uses phrases thus:
"that you heard from US..."
"...it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to US..."
"...OUR Gospel..."
Rarely does he refer to himself on such important matters. He doesn't have the "ME, the Bible and the Holy Spirit" mentality, and he not referring to the human race. When he speaks in the plural like that, he must be referring to his fellow Apostles and bishops. Your reply is correct. They were human beings.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Irenænus certainly believes it. As to Dionysius I am assuming you mean Dionysius of Corinth? I haven't read his letters just the summary Eusebius gives us in his Ecclesiastical History. By that time there seems to be a functioning monarchial episcopate in Rome. It is my reading that the office of a monarchial bishop in the Roman church was a development and wasn’t there from the very beginning. A development that occurred in Antioch before it occurred in Rome.

If something "develops" that "wasn't there from the very beginning" its not development, its a creation.
The canon of Scripture developed over 3+ centuries, and so did the papacy. The essence or core doctrine of the papacy has always been there from the beginning. We know this due to the prerogatives Jesus gave to Peter (Rock). That's the beginning of an ongoing development.

Dialogue On Doctrinal Development (Papacy & NT Canon)

Marvelously (or excruciatingly) in-depth discussion on Catholic doctrinal development, with the zealous and articulate (but wrongheaded) anti-Catholic Protestant apologist, Jason Engwer.

www.patheos.com

 

[Athanasius377]

If something "develops" that "wasn't there from the very beginning" its not development, its a creation.
The canon of Scripture developed over 3+ centuries, and so did the papacy. The essence or core doctrine of the papacy has always been there from the beginning. We know this due to the prerogatives Jesus gave to Peter (Rock). That's the beginning of an ongoing development.

Dialogue On Doctrinal Development (Papacy & NT Canon)

Marvelously (or excruciatingly) in-depth discussion on Catholic doctrinal development, with the zealous and articulate (but wrongheaded) anti-Catholic Protestant apologist, Jason Engwer.

www.patheos.com

And that my friend, is the abandonment of the historical field of battle because that is exactly what the reformers were saying in the sixteenth century. It is not what Romish apologists were saying even 200 years ago. This is Newman's historical revisionism. And it isn't what the Rome was saying at the time of Vatican I either:


THAT which the Prince of Shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, Jesus Christ our Lord, established in the person of the Blessed Apostle Peter to secure the perpetual welfare and lasting good of the Church, must, by the same institution, necessarily remain unceasingly in the Church, which, being founded upon the Rock, will stand firm to the end of the world. For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that the holy and Blessed Peter, the Prince and chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, and lives, presides, and judges to this day, always in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome, which was founded by Him and consecrated by His Blood.* Whence, whosoever succeeds to Peter in this See does by the institution of Christ Himself obtain the primacy of Peter over the whole Church.


McNabb, Vincent, editor. The Decrees of the Vatican Council. Benziger Brothers, 1907, pp. 38–39.

See Johnny Newman became deep in history or something. So deep that he left to go to Rome. And while he was in busy being deep in history he realized that none of the Roman distinctives were in fact, historical. They were obvious additions and accretions to the Faith that were unknown in the apostolic era. Some of the distinctives were relatively late in vintage. He also realizes that so much of the so-called proof that Romish churchman were pointing to were in fact forgeries and pseudepigrapha about as genuine as the "Donation of Constantine" or scriptural arguments as flimsy as a cardboard submarine. So what does Deep in history Johnny do? He invents his development hypothesis which becomes the "FlexTape" of the Catholic Answers world. Can't find the Papacy in scripture or early church history? Just slap some Newman on it and problem solved. Immaculate Conception of Mary? Just slap some Newman on it. Purgatory? You guessed it. Just slap some Newman on it.
\

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

And that my friend, is the abandonment of the historical field of battle because that is exactly what the reformers were saying in the sixteenth century. It is not what Romish apologists were saying even 200 years ago. This is Newman's historical revisionism. And it isn't what the Rome was saying at the time of Vatican I either:


THAT which the Prince of Shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, Jesus Christ our Lord, established in the person of the Blessed Apostle Peter to secure the perpetual welfare and lasting good of the Church, must, by the same institution, necessarily remain unceasingly in the Church, which, being founded upon the Rock, will stand firm to the end of the world. For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that the holy and Blessed Peter, the Prince and chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, and lives, presides, and judges to this day, always in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome, which was founded by Him and consecrated by His Blood.* Whence, whosoever succeeds to Peter in this See does by the institution of Christ Himself obtain the primacy of Peter over the whole Church.

McNabb, Vincent, editor. The Decrees of the Vatican Council. Benziger Brothers, 1907, pp. 38–39.

What's wrong with that? If you can't find the scriptural basis for this citation, it's not my problem.

See Johnny Newman became deep in history or something. So deep that he left to go to Rome. And while he was in busy being deep in history he realized that none of the Roman distinctives were in fact, historical.

He set out to prove that "none of the Roman distinctives were in fact, historical." and discovered the opposite.

They were obvious additions and accretions to the Faith that were unknown in the apostolic era. Some of the distinctives were relatively late in vintage. He also realizes that so much of the so-called proof that Romish churchman were pointing to were in fact forgeries and pseudepigrapha about as genuine as the "Donation of Constantine" or scriptural arguments as flimsy as a cardboard submarine.

"Donation of Constantine" is an emotional derailer, it had no impact on the doctrine of the papacy before or after the forgeries.

So what does Deep in history Johnny do? He invents his development hypothesis which becomes the "FlexTape" of the Catholic Answers world. Can't find the Papacy in scripture or early church history? Just slap some Newman on it and problem solved. Immaculate Conception of Mary? Just slap some Newman on it. Purgatory? You guessed it. Just slap some Newman on it.
\

Can't find the Papacy in scripture or early church history?

It's all there before Newman was born, gong back 2000 years. You can't find it because you choose not to.

Immaculate Conception of Mary?

Off topic emotional derailer.

Purgatory?

Off topic emotional derailer.
Slandering Newman without evidence is bearing false witness, not to mention sheer laziness.
John Henry Newman was an influential churchman and man of letters in the 19th century. He led the Oxford Movement in the Church of England, which argued for the protection of churches from state control and the preservation of apostolic faith123. Newman, along with John Keble and Edward Pusey, founded the Oxford Movement34. He later became a cardinal deacon in the Roman Catholic Church1.

John Henry Newman, a prolific writer, produced a wide range of works. Some of his notable writings include:

1. “Apologia Pro Vita Sua”: An autobiographical work in which he defends his religious journey from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism.
2. “The Idea of a University”: A series of lectures discussing the purpose and nature of higher education.
3. “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine”: An exploration of how Christian doctrine evolves over time.
4. “The Grammar of Assent”: A philosophical work on the nature of belief and assent.
5. Sermons: Newman delivered numerous sermons, which are highly regarded for their eloquence and theological insights.

These writings reflect his intellectual depth and commitment to exploring faith, reason, and education.
The Oxford Movement was a literal exodus of Anglican bishops and scholars swimming the Tiber.

To deny Christian status to Catholicism at any point of its development would be to cut off the limb on which Protestantism sits: in effect, this would logically reduce to a very curious and self-defeating standpoint that Christianity is not an historical religion by its very nature.​

How Newman Convinced Me To Become A Catholic

This is the most "theologically technical" version of the several variants of my conversion story: centering on Newman's teaching of development of doctrine.

www.patheos.com

 

[Brakelite]

"Donation of Constantine" is an emotional derailer, it had no impact on the doctrine of the papacy before or after the forgeries.

Mmmm. Even despite the fact that Pepin used the forgery to justify the theft of land on behalf of the papacy. This was in the 8th century, and was republished numerous times since. And despite the fact that the donation was a part of Gratian's contribution to Canon law 600 years later. And remained so a further 300 years. And it had no effect on Papal doctrine? The Donation was a momentous document, and was used by the papacy for nearly 1000 years to increase and solidify papal dominion and power.

 

[Brakelite]

One man said this a while back ...
"Organization was designed to secure unity of action, and as a protection from imposture. It was never intended as a scourge to compel obedience, but rather for the protection of the people of God. Christ does not drive his people; he calls them. ‘My sheep hear my voice, I know them, and they follow me.’ Our Living Head leads the way, and calls his people to follow. “Human creeds cannot produce unity. Church force cannot press the church into one body. Christ never designed that human minds should
be moulded for heaven by the influence of other human minds. ‘The head of every man is Christ.’ His part is to lead, and to mould, and to stamp his own image upon the heirs of eternal glory. However important organization may be for the protection of the church, and to secure harmony of action, it must not come in to take the discipline from the hands of the Master."

Quoting this from another thread, but is equally appropriate here. I don't decry church organisation. I belong too a denomination that is highly organised. But the above pos/quote reveals two things. It reveals how far beyond it's property boundaries the Catholic church took it's perceived 'authority", and precisely where the CHURCH OUGHT TO BE.

 

[Athanasius377]

What's wrong with that? If you can't find the scriptural basis for this citation, it's not my problem.

That is not the point. The point is that Rome in the sixteenth century and prior up until the nineteenth century was arguing that her peculiar doctrines had no basis in scripture nor did they need to have said basis because they came from sacred tradition. For those that do not know Rome claims that there are two streams of revelation, one being Sacred Scriptures, the other being Sacred Tradition. Vatican I was still arguing in the manner much in the same way the Council of Trent did 300 years prior. The Roman church was arguing the exact opposite of the development of doctrine which oddly enough, was the Reformers' position. Here's an example from the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent"

The sacred and holy, œcumenical and general Synod of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein,—keeping this always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which [Gospel], before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His apostles to every creature, as the fountain both of every saving truth, and discipline of morals; and perceiving that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the apostles themselves,o the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; [the synod] following the examples of the orthodox fathers, receives and venerates with equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament,—seeing that one God is the author of both, as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved by a continuous succession in the Catholic Church.
Buckley, Theodore Alois. The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. George Routledge and Co., 1851, pp. 17–18.

As you can read, Rome in the 16th century knows nothing of a development of doctrine. That hypothesis is a recent, ehem, development.

 

[Behold]

The point is that Rome in the sixteenth century and prior up until the nineteenth century was arguing that her peculiar doctrines had no basis in scripture nor did they need to have said basis because they came from sacred tradition.

-
Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

New Living Translation
And so you cancel the word of God in order to hand down your own tradition. And this is only one example among many others.”

English Standard Version
thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

Berean Standard Bible
Thus you nullify the word of God by the tradition you have handed down. And you do so in many such matters.”

Berean Literal Bible
making void the word of God for your tradition, which you have handed down. And you do many things like such."

King James Bible
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

New King James Version
making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

New American Standard Bible
thereby invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

NASB 1995
thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”


Amplified Bible
so you nullify the [authority of the] word of God [acting as if it did not apply] because of your tradition which you have handed down [through the elders]. And you do many things such as that.”

Christian Standard Bible
You nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many other similar things.”



American Standard Version
making void the word of God by your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things ye do.

 

[Athanasius377]

He set out to prove that "none of the Roman distinctives were in fact, historical." and discovered the opposite.

He discovered nothing of the sort. Meaning that JHN was aware of all the historical problems of Rome’s claims. From the preface of the 1878 edition of the "An Essay on the Development of Doctrine:

THE following pages were not in the first instance written to prove the divinity of the Catholic Religion, though ultimately they furnish a positive argument in its behalf, but to explain certain difficulties in its history, felt before now by the author himself, and commonly insisted on by Protestants in controversy, as serving to blunt the force of its primâ facie and general claims on our recognition.


JHN actually concedes most of the historical arguments that Magisterial Protestants have been making for the past 350 years yet that is not the point. He is trying to reframe the argument to in order to survive the assaults of German liberalism that was beginning to rot the Church of England. While one can, at first glance, be sympathetic to his arguments what you find as you zoom out is that JHN is engaging in post ex facto reasoning. JHN is almost reactionary when it comes to this kind of liberalism and skepticism and thus begins with a philosophical or perhaps even political premise which then collides with his theology. As his philosophical premise evolves it forces JHN to restitch his theology according to his philosophy. As you read his "Apologia", one can see that is what is happening as he recounts his evolution and conversion to Rome.

Slandering Newman without evidence is bearing false witness, not to mention sheer laziness.
John Henry Newman was an influential churchman and man of letters in the 19th century. He led the Oxford Movement in the Church of England, which argued for the protection of churches from state control and the preservation of apostolic faith123. Newman, along with John Keble and Edward Pusey, founded the Oxford Movement34. He later became a cardinal deacon in the Roman Catholic Church1.

John Henry Newman, a prolific writer, produced a wide range of works. Some of his notable writings include:

1. “Apologia Pro Vita Sua”: An autobiographical work in which he defends his religious journey from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism.
2. “The Idea of a University”: A series of lectures discussing the purpose and nature of higher education.
3. “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine”: An exploration of how Christian doctrine evolves over time.
4. “The Grammar of Assent”: A philosophical work on the nature of belief and assent.
5. Sermons: Newman delivered numerous sermons, which are highly regarded for their eloquence and theological insights.

These writings reflect his intellectual depth and commitment to exploring faith, reason, and education.
The Oxford Movement was a literal exodus of Anglican bishops and scholars swimming the Tiber.

To deny Christian status to Catholicism at any point of its development would be to cut off the limb on which Protestantism sits: in effect, this would logically reduce to a very curious and self-defeating standpoint that Christianity is not an historical religion by its very nature.

John Henry Cardinal Newman was a brilliant chap to be sure. Wrong, but brilliant. I was poking a little fun at JHN. I had to read #1 and #3 of JHN's works you listed some 15 years ago along with about maybe dozen sermons and lectures. In my opinion he straddles the Romantic and Modern era which I would add being a romantic is problematic when handling history. If you read "An essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine", it is clear that his philosophical and perhaps his political precepts are underpinning his theology. It’s the lens by which he is developing his theology. Furthermore, and I am hardly alone in stating this, Newman is engaging in ex post facto reasoning in EDCD. Yet that isn't the part of JHN that I find most disturbing. I find him to be thoroughly deceptive and subversive in his handling of the meaning of language especially of Tract 90. Perhaps the first postmodern with a Romish bent. If you read his "Apologia", he admits as much:

In addition, I was embarrassed in consequence of my wish to go as far as was possible, in interpreting the Articles in the direction of Roman dogma, without disclosing what I was doing to the parties whose doubts I was meeting, who might be thereby encouraged to go still further than at present they found in themselves any call to do.

Newman, John Henry. Apologia Pro Vita Sua. D. Appleton and Company, 1865, p. 124.



You see, Charles Kingsley was right to question JHN's integrity. Of course, JHN converted to Rome after the controversy erupted over tract 90. I would argue that JHN fascination with Rome was a part of his romanticism as well as his reaction to the creeping liberalism and outright revolution that was spreading across the continent. To be fair, Rome at the time was a bulwark against the revolutions that were sweeping the continent at this time. JHN was a counter-revolutionary in my opinion and that was the driving force in his conversion or at least a large part of it.