The Dimonds posted this on their youtube page.

John Henry Newman’s Error On Baptism & Confirmation

In the past we’ve mentioned that Cardinal John Henry Newman’s understanding of dogma was very flawed.  A clear example of that is found in the following passage.

John Henry Newman, An Essay On The Development Of Christian Doctrine, Chapter 2, Sect. 3, 1878: “Of the Sacraments, Baptism is developed into Confirmation on the one hand; into Penance, Purgatory, and Indulgences on the other.”

According to Newman, Confirmation is a development of Baptism.  But that’s false.  Such a notion was condemned as a modernist error in the following passage of Pope St. Pius X’s Lamentabile.

Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #44: “There is nothing to prove that the rite of the Sacrament of Confirmation was employed by the Apostles.  The formal distinction of the two Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation does not pertain to the history of primitive Christianity.” - CONDEMNED

.....etc.

ALWAYS question the Dimond Brothers - they are masters at twisting the truth.

John Henry Newman's 'An Essay On The Development Of Christian Doctrine' was written just before Newman's conversion to Catholicism in 1845. This work was first published in that same year.

The Postscript by the publisher in this first edition reads as follows: "Since, the above (Preface) was written, the Author has joined the Catholic Church. It was his intention and wish to have carried his Volume through the Press before deciding finally on this step. But when he had got some way in the printing, he recognized in himself a conviction of truth of the conclusions to which the discussions leads, so clear as to supersede further deliberation. Shortly afterwards circuмstances gave him the opportunity of acting upon it, and he felt that he had no warrant for refusing to do so.

His first act on his conversion was to offer his Work for the revision to the proper authorities; but the offer was decline on the ground that it was written and partly printed before he was a Catholic, and that it would come before the reader in a more persuasive form, if he read it as the author wrote it....".

This would indicate that any flaws in this work may be contributed to Newman's protestant formation. The above work was written while he was still an Anglican.

If we are going to post examples of his said errors, they will need to be examples taken from his work after his conversion. 

I would be very interested to hear what others have to say on this matter because I'm a great fan of Michael Davies (English traditional Catholic writer) and he in turn seemed to quote John Henry Newman a lot.

ALWAYS question the Dimond Brothers - they are masters at twisting the truth.

John Henry Newman's 'An Essay On The Development Of Christian Doctrine' was written just before Newman's conversion to Catholicism in 1845. This work was first published in that same year.

The Postscript by the publisher in this first edition reads as follows: "Since, the above (Preface) was written, the Author has joined the Catholic Church. It was his intention and wish to have carried his Volume through the Press before deciding finally on this step. But when he had got some way in the printing, he recognized in himself a conviction of truth of the conclusions to which the discussions leads, so clear as to supersede further deliberation. Shortly afterwards circuмstances gave him the opportunity of acting upon it, and he felt that he had no warrant for refusing to do so.

His first act on his conversion was to offer his Work for the revision to the proper authorities; but the offer was decline on the ground that it was written and partly printed before he was a Catholic, and that it would come before the reader in a more persuasive form, if he read it as the author wrote it....".

This would indicate that any flaws in this work may be contributed to Newman's protestant formation. The above work was written while he was still an Anglican.

If we are going to post examples of his said errors, they will need to be examples taken from his work after his conversion. 

I would be very interested to hear what others have to say on this matter because I'm a great fan of Michael Davies (English traditional Catholic writer) and he in turn seemed to quote John Henry Newman a lot.

You will see that the Dimond brothers quoted from the 1878 edition. The 1878 edition was approved by Newman and included a dedication from him to the president of Trinity College. It also includes the same error as the first edition. 

They're willing to canonize Newman while they reject Thomas A Kempis.  With Kempis they heavily rely on a devil's advocate to assume he might have thought something against God because he was buried alive.  Yet Newman wanting to be buried on top (Newman's request) another man was Okee Dokee.

Talk about a falsehood growing in the telling! There is no evidence that Thomas A. Kempis was buried alive. He died at the extreme old age of 91 after a long illness from dropsy. The reason he has not been canonized is because not all the conditions necessary were met. There is no doubt about his virtue but miracles through his intercession have not been sufficiently proven. As for the insinuations you made about Newman, you are walking on thin ice. John Henry's (Catholic) life long friend of over thirty years - Fr. Ambrose St. John - died before him, and therefore Newman made arrangements for himself to be buried in the same grave as his friend. To word it the way you did is disgraceful.

Talk about a falsehood growing in the telling! There is no evidence that Thomas A. Kempis was buried alive.

  Yes there is.  He was dug up during a canonization inquiry and there were scratch marks found on the top/inside of the casket.  Since people questioned if he despaired, his canonization didn't proceed.

Several bishops denounced Newman to Rome as a heretic, and the very orthodox Cardinal Manninger certainly considered him to be one.

St. Pius X, unfortunately, made the mistake of backing Newman ... undoubtedly due to his advisors, since he obviously did not have the time to read the torrent of writing from Newman.

Newman had been very much opposed to Vatican I, and told those who opposed it after the Council to lay low because some day the "interpretation" of Vatican I, of papal infallibility, would change.  He clearly had a Modernist view regarding the "development of doctrine" (despite people who tried to claim otherwise), and Newman actually was the one who allowed the Modernists to get that initial foothold into the Church.

  Yes there is.  He was dug up during a canonization inquiry and there were scratch marks found on the top/inside of the casket.  Since people questioned if he despaired, his canonization didn't proceed.

Pax, this is a wild rumour. If you don't believe me, state your source. Where is the official statement?

It doesn't even make sense. If I woke up to find myself in a coffin, I would attempt to lift the lid. Anyone would! That would have absolutely no baring on his sainthood.

It doesn't even make sense (i.e. Thomas a Kempis possibly being buried alive). If I woke up to find myself in a coffin, I would attempt to lift the lid. Anyone would! That would have absolutely no baring on his sainthood.

How would you lift up the lid (of the casket)?  #1, assuming he was buried rather than entombed there would have been several feet of dirt on top of it.  #2, it is highly likely, even in the 15th century, that the casket or coffin lid was fastened down by screws or wooden pegs, making it impossible to push it open from the inside.

Several bishops denounced Newman to Rome as a heretic, and the very orthodox Cardinal Manninger certainly considered him to be one.

St. Pius X, unfortunately, made the mistake of backing Newman ... undoubtedly due to his advisors, since he obviously did not have the time to read the torrent of writing from Newman.

Newman had been very much opposed to Vatican I, and told those who opposed it after the Council to lay low because some day the "interpretation" of Vatican I, of papal infallibility, would change.  He clearly had a Modernist view regarding the "development of doctrine" (despite people who tried to claim otherwise), and Newman actually was the one who allowed the Modernists to get that initial foothold into the Church.

There is a lot of hate and lies being directed at this great man and I would like to know where it is coming from.

If you have concrete proof that Newman taught error as a Catholic, then please post it. Otherwise you are merely slandering this poor man's name and passing on slander.

Don't believe what the haters say - research yourself. I am convinced that we have anti-Catholic agitators on this forum so be careful.

For those who believe Pope Pius made a mistake in approving John Henry Newman's work please read the following article - link provided.

https://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2025/08/pius-x-vindicates-john-henry-newman.html