CathInfo.com

Venerable Brother, greetings and Our Apostolic blessing. We hereby inform you that your essay, in which you show that the writings of Cardinal Newman, far from being in disagreement with Our Encyclical Letter Pascendi, are very much in harmony with it, has been emphatically approved by Us: for you could not have better served both the truth and the dignity of man.

It is clear that those people whose errors We have condemned in that Docuмent had decided among themselves to produce something of their own invention with which to seek the commendation of a distinguished person. And so they everywhere assert with confidence that they have taken these things from the very source and summit of authority, and that therefore We cannot censure their teachings, but rather that We had even previously gone so far as to condemn what such a great author had taught.

Incredible though it may appear, although it is not always realised, there are to be found those who are so puffed up with pride that it is enough to overwhelm the mind, and who are convinced that they are Catholics and pass themselves off as such, while in matters concerning the inner discipline of religion they prefer the authority of their own private teaching to the pre-eminent authority of the Magisterium of the Apostolic See. Not only do you fully demonstrate their obstinacy but you also show clearly their deceitfulness.

For, if in the things he had written before his profession of the Catholic faith one can justly detect something which may have a kind of similarity with certain Modernist formulas, you are correct in saying that this is not relevant to his later works. Moreover, as far as that matter is concerned, his way of thinking has been expressed in very different ways, both in the spoken word and in his published writings, and the author himself, on his admission into the Catholic Church, forwarded all his writings to the authority of the same Church so that any corrections might be made, if judged appropriate.

Regarding the large number of books of great importance and influence which he wrote as a Catholic, it is hardly necessary to exonerate them from any connection with this present heresy. And indeed, in the domain of England, it is common knowledge that Henry Newman pleaded the cause of the Catholic faith in his prolific literary output so effectively that his work was both highly beneficial to its citizens and greatly appreciated by Our Predecessors: and so he is held worthy of office whom Leo XIII, undoubtedly a shrewd judge of men and affairs, appointed Cardinal; indeed he was very highly regarded by him at every stage of his career, and deservedly so.

Truly, there is something about such a large quantity of work and his long hours of labour lasting far into the night that seems foreign to the usual way of theologians: nothing can be found to bring any suspicion about his faith. You correctly state that it is entirely to be expected that where no new signs of heresy were apparent he has perhaps used an off-guard manner of speaking to some people in certain places, but that what the Modernists do is to falsely and deceitfully take those words out of the whole context of what he meant to say and twist them to suit their own meaning. We therefore congratulate you for having, through your knowledge of all his writings, brilliantly vindicated the memory of this eminently upright and wise man from injustice: and also for having, to the best of your ability, brought your influence to bear among your fellow-countrymen, but particularly among the English people, so that those who were accustomed to abusing his name and deceiving the ignorant should henceforth cease doing so.

Would that they should follow Newman the author faithfully by studying his books without, to be sure, being addicted to their own prejudices, and let them not with wicked cunning conjure anything up from them or declare that their own opinions are confirmed in them; but instead let them understand his pure and whole principles, his lessons and inspiration which they contain. They will learn many excellent things from such a great teacher: in the first place, to regard the Magisterium of the Church as sacred, to defend the doctrine handed down inviolately by the Fathers and, what is of highest importance to the safeguarding of Catholic truth, to follow and obey the Successor of St. Peter with the greatest faith.

To you, therefore, Venerable Brother, and to your clergy and people, We give Our heartfelt thanks for having taken the trouble to help Us in Our reduced circuмstances by sending your communal gift of financial aid: and in order to gain for you all, but first and foremost for yourself, the gifts of God’s goodness, and as a testimony of Our benevolence, We affectionately bestow Our Apostolic blessing.

Given in Rome at St. Peter’s, on 10 March 1908, in the fifth year of Our Pontificate.

Pius PP. X
(Pope St. Pius X, Apostolic Letter Tuum Illud; original in Acta Sanctae Sedis XLI [1908], pp. 200-202; underlining and paragraph breaks added.)

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

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.