Potentially problematic quote in Cardinal Newman's work

Cardinal John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, p. 68 or Chap. 2 #12: “ Moreover, while it is certain that developments of Revelation proceeded all through the Old Dispensation {68} down to the very end of our Lord's ministry, on the other hand, if we turn our attention to the beginnings of Apostolical teaching after His ascension, we shall find ourselves unable to fix an historical point at which the growth of doctrine ceased, and the rule of faith was once for all settled. Not on the day of Pentecost, for St. Peter had still to learn at Joppa that he was to baptize Cornelius; not at Joppa and Cæsarea, for St. Paul had to write his Epistles; not on the death of the last Apostle, for St. Ignatius had to establish the doctrine of Episcopacy; not then, nor for centuries after, for the Canon of the New Testament was still undetermined. Not in the Creed, which is no collection of definitions, but a summary of certain credenda, an incomplete summary, and, like the Lord's Prayer or the Decalogue, a mere sample of divine truths, especially of the more elementary. 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. The Church went forth from the old world in haste, as the Israelites from Egypt "with their dough before it was leavened, their kneading troughs being bound up in their clothes upon their shoulders." (p. 68, Univ. of Notre Dame Press)



Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, July 3, 1907, The Errors of the Modernists #22: “Revelation, constituting the object of Catholic faith, was not completed with the apostles.” – Condemned (Denz. 2021)

It is only problematic for those who don’t understand certain critical theological distinctions. The fact that Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle does not mean that every revealed truth came out of the shoot in its fully developed form.

In other words, nowhere did Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman suggest that Revelation did not end with the death of the last Apostle.

This is the type of stuff one typically finds at sedevacantist sites, and it is a shame that it gets any press at all; though perhaps it serves some good to point out the fallacies of such blind contentions so that those who frequent these sites (an occasion to sin, for sure) and who begin to wonder if such things are true, can finally see where such poor arm-chair theology leads.

MRyan wrote:It is only problematic for those who don’t understand certain critical theological distinctions. The fact that Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle does not mean that every revealed truth came out of the shoot in its fully developed form.

In other words, nowhere did Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman suggest that Revelation did not end with the death of the last Apostle.

This is the type of stuff one typically finds at sedevacantist sites, and it is a shame that it gets any press at all; though perhaps it serves some good to point out the fallacies of such blind contentions so that those who frequent these sites (an occasion to sin, for sure) and who begin to wonder if such things are true, can finally see where such poor arm-chair theology leads.

No it isn't a sede discussion. Orestes Brownson,I know how much you like him, wrote against Newman's theses and Bill Strom's site has the condemnation delivered against it by Pius X, when he condemned modernism:
http://catholicvox.blogspot.com/search/label/Usual%20Suspects-Cardinal%20Newman