CathInfo.com

Sean loves Newman now on account of his SVDS (Sedevavantist Derangement Syndrome) because he finds material in Newman that supports R&R.  But then you can find support for R&R in the works of any Modernist.  Modernists have no use for the teaching authority of the Church.

We have Newman on record coming out against papal infallibility (something R&R dislike and are as hostile to as Newman was), and against the Syllabus of Errors (but Sean ignores that part).

What won’t and can’t go away is Newman’s statement that infallibility will be properly interpreted and corrected by a future pope.  That is textbook Modernism.  In the condemnations of Modernism, Catholics are taught that we must accept dogmas as they were understood by the Church at the time they were defined and cannot appeal to a future pope or Council to correct or amend them toward a better or clearer understanding.

On the basis of that statement alone, it’s proven that Newman was a Modernist.  Case closed.

Ladislaus is talking out of his ass again.

Any connection between RR and Newman has never entered into my mind (and I'd be curious to see you cite something from him which you think supports RR, as I've never seen him cited by anyone in support of it).

Wow, you can't even be honest about this.  You started the whole Newman thing because you found him babbling about a suspended Magisterium during the Arian crisis.  You're completely lying about how you like Newman for being an anti-Modernist (which is an utter joke) when the thread you first started about him was exclusively focused on the suspension of the Magisterium ... an opinion that Monsignor Fenton characterized as "bizarre" (and that was his way of being charitable).

The hubris/narcisissm implicit in your rejection of Leo XIII and Pope St. Pius X's endorsement of Newman (and this without ever having read a thing he wrote) is typical you.

As has been pointed out, it's hardly possible that St. Pius X himself studied the profusely voluminous writings of Newman.  What he was endorsing was some apologetical work from a bishop who cherry-picked the Catholic-sounding quotes from Newman.  Newman, like all Modernists, as St. Pius X himself stated, blended orthodox Catholic propositions with Modernist ones, so someone who wanted to be an apologist for Newman could merely cherry-pick the Catholic-sounding ones to put together an apologetic piece.

Cardinal Manning stated that Newman was guilty of at least 10 heresies, and several bishops in the UK denounced Newman to Rome for heresy.  Newman was allied with the excommunicated Dollinger in agitating against papal infallibility and then reluctantly paid lip service to it on a prorivional basis, with the hope that a future pope would come along and correct/revise it ... textbook Modernism.  In fact, some of the dissidents thanked Newman for his development of doctrine position because it enabled them to retain office by paying lip service to infallibility with the understanding that it was still "under development".

St. Pius X, while a great saint, was only human, and he made a mistake in endorsing Newman based upon his misplaced trust in the bishop who wrote the book that he was endorsing.  Archbishop Lefebvre, while a saintly man himself, made some poor judgments in putting his trust in the likes of Fr. Schmidberger and Bishop Fellay (among many others) ... or allowing Urrutigoity to enter STAS, etc.  Archbishop Lefebvre made quite a few mistakes, but he's only human.  And Archbishop Lefebvre will undoubtedly be canonized some day despite these mistakes.