CathInfo.com

https://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/Internet_Files/A_028_Another_Look_at_Newman.pdf

https://archive.org/details/AnotherLookAtNewman/mode/2up

The Liberal Cardinal Newman
Americans Dont Know

Like many American conservatives, growing up I heard the words of Card. John Henry Newman often in sermons and catechism classes. A prayer card with his well-known Marian prayer was in my mothers prayer-book. There was a Newman Center for Catholics at the nearby State University. I assumed that the converted Anglican minister who caused a stir at Oxford was orthodox and praiseworthy.

It only has been in the last 10 years that I began to realize that there is a difference between the myth about Card. Newman and the reality. The American myth, nurtured on anthologies of sermons, prayers and sayings of Newman, presents a pious, devotional and pastoral priest and teacher. The reality is different.

Newman was a complex, controversial man, universally considered a liberal in his day, almost always in a tug of war with Rome, almost always in opposition to her orthodox authorities. His revolutionary stands have not been made known to Catholics of our century because the biographies of him either downplayed or excused his liberal positions and heterodox leanings or were written from the liberal standpoint.

So, when Tradition in Action recently asked me to read and comment on the e-book Another Look at John Henry Cardinal Newman by Richard Sartino, I was happy to comply. In this book, which you can read here, the author insists that Catholics must look at the work and thinking of the whole man, not just at some of his prayers and sermons.

The most dangerous man in England

What we find in this book is the Newman who advocated for openness in theological thinking and a broader role for the laity in the Church. On the growth of doctrine, he held that revelation was given, according to the divine plan, as a seed destined to grow in the course of centuries. Newman was convinced that human conscience would have such a decisive role in doctrine that it should be seen a mediator between defined dogmas and individual knowledge, a position formally condemned by the Church. He was openly hostile to the Syllabus against Liberalism and the definition of papal infallibility because he could not conceive an unchangeable theological truth.

Sartino tells us, The best witness we have of his Liberalism is, ironically, the consensus fidelium of the 19th century, and in particular the Roman Curia and the Sovereign Pontiff Pius IX. (p. 36)

Orthodox theologians like the Jesuits Giovanni Perrone and J.B. Franzelin opposed his ideas. The authentic ultramontane champions of that time Card. Manning, Fr. Faber, Msgr. Talbot and W.G. Ward - all suspected one or another of Newmans writings and schemes. Msgr. Talbot went so far as to call him the most dangerous man in England. (p. 5)

The deep antagonism between the solidly orthodox Card. Manning and the liberal Card. Newman is usually minimized by conservative writers, reduced to nothing more that a lack of sympathy between Newman the theologian and Manning the practical pastor, between Newman, a temperamental scholar with a somewhat feminine hue and Card. Manning, the virile outdoorsman.

The strong opposition was, in fact, based on doctrinal differences. Sartino relates this interesting incident recorded by J.E.C. Bodley about a meeting he had with Manning:

"The conversation moved to theological ground, and Mannings tone changed.

"From an observation you made,' he said, 'I gather that you are under the impression that Dr. Newman is a good Catholic.' I replied that such was my vague belief. He retorted: 'Either you are ignorant of the Catholic doctrine or of the works of Dr. Newman' he always said Dr. Newman in Oxford fashion, and never gave him the title of Cardinal.

"After asking me which of Newmans books I had read, he proceeded to tick off on his tapering fingers, in his usual way, 10 distinct heresies to be found in the most widely-read works of Dr. Newman." (p. 7)

Later, Sartino lists - just in his book Grammar of Assent - eight philosophical teachings that the Church has always held and Newman rejected (p. 13). He starts with Newmans assertion that the concrete is superior to the abstract, the practical superior to the speculative. He also sustained that the dogmas and doctrines of the Church should be interpreted in a subjective fashion rather than be apprehended objectively. For Newman there were no unchangeable principles.

It is sad to say, but it was for this subjectivism in doctrine, which today is called Newmans richness of thinking, that he is considered a precursor of Vatican II. Manning, indeed, was right - he had read Newman carefully in the light of Catholic theology and condemned his writings accordingly.

Opponent of Papal Infallibility & the Syllabus

Pope Pius IX distrusted Newman and refused to give him the cardinals hat. Was he moved by just some personal animus against the Anglican convert? Not at all, for, as Sartino clearly shows, the Pontiff had legitimate grounds for his suspicions.

Newman openly criticized papal infallibility. When it was declared as a dogma he wrote I never expected to see such a scandal in the Church, and affirmed that it was orchestrated by those who wished the Churchs downfall. He reluctantly accepted the dogma but predicted that the day would come when the whole Church will be heard and Catholic instincts and ideas would assimilate into the living tradition of the faithful. (p. 36) In fact, that day came at a Second Vatican Council a century later.

When Pius IX issued the Syllabus of Errors against the multiple of modern errors, Newman was also reluctant to accept its content and criticized it, again putting him in open confrontation with Card. Manning, Msgr. Talbot and W.G. Ward. The suffering that came from opposing the Three Tailors of Tooley Street would be great, Newman sarcastically wrote his companions, but it is worth the suffering if we effectually oppose them.

Sartino continues: In one of his writings Newman asserted that the Syllabus, qua Syllabus, was not binding as an object of faith, in other words, as a collection of condemnations decreed in the past it was not binding per se. This allowed him to dodge the Decree with tact, but we can ask why the same could not be applied to the Creed which is also a Symbol or collection of divinely revealed dogmas. (pp. 25-26)

Newmans criticisms of the traditional Magisterium increased after 1870. Although outwardly he always professed obedience to it, interiorly he admitted dissent. He counseled his liberal friends to have patience. Let us have faith, a new Pope and a re-assembled Council may trim the boat."

Ambiguous language and questionable orthodoxy

The praise of progressivists for Newman and his influence on Vatican II is as interminable as the justifications made by conservatives who try to prove his orthodoxy. I believe that one reason for the confusion is the ambiguous language Newman carefully employed to introduce novel and dangerous thinking, on one hand, and to avoid an outright condemnation of Rome, on the other.

His elastic language gave the liberal Catholics a springboard to move forward, while the conservatives could spend their labor demonstrating how Newmans thinking could be interpreted in light of Tradition. It sounds very familiar to traditional Catholics of our day who are seeing the same scenario play out in relation to Vatican II

Newmans beliefs as outlined in his two chief works, The Development of Christian Doctrine (1845) and The Grammar of Assent (1875), brought Liberalism into the Church. Sartino carefully analyzes the ambiguities in both of these works and presents their dangerous consequences against the Faith.

For example, his underlying position in The Grammar of Assent revealed an aversion for Thomistic theology for being abstract and impersonal. Cautiously choosing his words, he aimed to demonstrate that there is another way other than demonstration and syllogistic inference to arrive at the knowledge of God. The purpose of his treatise is to support subjectivism and liberty of conscience by establishing a subjective mode of assenting to truth, which cannot be experienced by other men in exactly the same manner.

Newman continually asserted that his new way did not deny the old way. He called his way a real assent to the concrete accompanied by vivid images, distinguishing it from what he calls notional assent, the traditional method based on mere abstract notions. In effect, Sartino explains, what he said is that truth and dogma are one thing, while a real, living, personal religion is another. What theologians perceive in one thing; what the living faithful understand and interpret are quite another. Theology is one interpretation of dogma; living religion is another interpretation.

Sartino explains the enormous and deadly consequences of Newmans new method of assent:
The effect of this false dichotomy is to open the door for a Catholic to think one way and act in another, for it divorces the contemplative and speculative mind of man (which for Newman is governed only by notional assents) from his practical intellect (the realm of Newmans real assents).

According to this view a man can interpret the dogma Jesus Christ is the Son of God in two ways; either as an abstract doctrine which is objective and indifferent to the person believing it, or as a concrete religious fact that is meaningful to the person accepting it. The error of this position lies in defining a theological truth in relation to the person, as if something of the believer enters into the definition of theological truth. Truth, consequently, becomes dependent on the person; that is, relative (p. 14).

This explains Newmans hostility to the Syllabus and the dogma of Pontifical Infallibility, for he could not conceive how someone could make an absolute and unconditional assent to a rigid and unchangeable theological truth. Sartino continues:
Another dire consequence of this position is that living religion, or religion in the concrete, takes on primary importance while dogmas and theological truths become secondary. (p. 15)

From this comes the modernist heresy that dogmas are merely provisional formulas whose utility is determined, not by themselves, but by their relevant and practical application to the here and now, and the norm of their practical application is the person. The entire theology is turned upside down.

Precursor of Vatican II

Where did Newman find support and congenial company? In his own time, it was among the declared liberals like the excommunicated Benedictine Dllinger and Lord Acton who were determined to undermine the Faith.

The renown and influence that came to him after his death were not due to his orthodoxy, but precisely the opposite, because of his Liberalism. In the first half of the 20th century, it was the modernist intellectual movements who championed his thinking as ahead of his times. Newman was a man so various. A primer of infidelity could be compiled from his works," said Thomas Huxley. (p. 34)

Benedict XVI

Benedict: Newman is "my passion"

Today, it is Progressivism who rallies behind Newman as one of its prophets. One contemporary enthusiast tells us that Newmans concept of a universal revelation runs parallel to those of Hans Urs von Balthasar, Karl Rahner, and Richard Niebuhr. (2)

The Scholarly Boston Encyclopedia of Western Theology assures us that Newmans understanding of natural religion and his expression crypto-Christians - referring to those who have assented to all they have been exposed to of true religion - anticipated the understanding of anonymous Christians of Karl Rahner.

Avery Dulles finds elements in Newmans theology that facilitated the development of ecuмenism. He points out Newman had a great desire for restoring the unity of all Christian churches. His view on freedom of conscience made him sensitive to the religious beliefs of other Christians, and he was on guard against unsettling them in their faith. To this Dulles adds that Newman had a measure of appreciation for the workings of grace in other Christian communions. Dulles concludes by stating that Newman was a forerunner, standing on the threshold of a new ecuмenical age. (3)

What all the enthusiasts of Newman insist is that his insights into the nature of the Church, theological development of dogma, personal conscience, the laity, universal revelation, and biblical interpretation were at the heart of Vatican IIs work. As the progressivist London The Tablet affirmed in an editorial celebrating Newmans coming beatification, To be a Newman Catholic is to endorse the Council, for it was this most English of Holy Men who provided its key inspiration. (4)

Taking a closer look

It is no surprise that the Conciliar Church is clamoring for Newmans canonization. That Benedict XVI promotes him without qualification is also understandable, given his views on subjective revelation, ecuмenism, the evolution of dogmas, religious liberty and biblical study.

What is not comprehensible is the number of traditionalist Catholics who follow the old party line, accepting Newman for sentimental or secondary reasons, ignoring that he was a forerunner of Vatican II and its disastrous consequences.

I believe it is time to take another look at Newman. A good place to start is with this book that analyzes the whole man.

LOL.

TIA: "The most dangerous man in England."

Cardinal Manning: "We have lost our greatest witness for the faith..."

Desisions, decisions...an easy one for me.

No, he was a Proto-Modernist and the Father or Modernism, plus had suspect inclinations.

Spot on Ladislaus. 

‘The Germ of Modernism:
Around 1860, the Catholic learned world began to feel fully for the first time the impact of that extensive thing, modern thought. Dazzled by the prestige of 19th century science and scholarship and the technical marvels that went with them, they began accepting a whole range of speculative ideas and ideologies as established truths. Their original intention was apostolic, to detach all that was acceptable in modern thought and show how it could be harmonised with Catholic belief so that no unnecessary obstacles would prevent the men of their age from seeing Christ in the Catholic Church and the faithful themselves would not uselessly oppose what was naturally good. The wheat in modern thought had to be separated from the chaff — a praiseworthy intention. This is the idea behind all true concepts of what Pope John XXIII meant [at Vatican II] by aggiornamento. The Church, it was said, must be reconciled with “modern times” or “the spirit of the age.” By the 1870s, the learned Catholics I am talking about had begun trying to make supernatural knowledge or faith, look “reasonable” to their unbelieving generation. This was the origin of Modernism, and the intellectual subordination of the Church to secular learning its foundation stone. At the end of this process - which is now being reached - all of Revelation has been cast aside as a fairy story, which men invented to explain things before they could think, and “science” and “modern thought,” accepted in their totality as the only source of knowledge, are woven into a religion. We are watching a bit of genuine evolution - the transformation of one kind of creature into another. When complete, the Christian steps forth, a Christian no longer, but a full-fledged man of the enlightenment.’ (Philip Trower: The Church Learned and the Revolt of the Scholars, Wanderer Press, 1979.)

Modernism began in 1820 when Pope Pius VII inferred that the scientific lie of a proven heliocentrism 'according to {Galileo] and modern astronomers' could now officially replace the moving-sun of Scripture that his predecessors Pope Paul V and Pope Urban VIII has defined and declared as formal heresy. By then the natural origin of heliocentrism had been proposed by the 'Nebular theory.' History records everywhere that churchmen were so 'embarrassed' by the 'scientific proofs' that showed the Church of 1616 and 1633 got its hermeneutics and exegesis wrong that they were SCARED to condemn any of the evolutionary proposals after 1820. This allowed the Bible to be classed as 'poetry' and the supernatural content of Genesis was eliminated. Now remember that Genesis tell us why it was necessary for JESUS to become man and open up the possibility of heaven for mankind once again.

In my next post I will introduce the modernism of John Henry Newman (1801-1890), often referred to as ‘a pioneer and prophet of Vatican Council II,’ a title few could disagree with.