http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/10Jan/jan21rea.htmI just found this article from Father Gabriel Lavery of CMRI, a priest that I am acquainted with, and who is now the regular priest at the chapel I used to attend. Here he is defending Cardinal Newman. The plot thickens.
"In this interview Fr. Feeney makes many false and certainly gratuitous accusations against the cardinal. He claimed that he was of Jєωιѕн descent (as if that made him a bad Catholic), and that his conversion from Anglicanism was only nostalgic. Shall we, together with TIA, trust the judgment of an excommunicated priest, or shall we follow the judgment of a sainted pontiff?"
I am not a Feeneyite, as goes the mantra, but this reference to Feeney as an "excommunicated priest" makes me cringe. Anyone who says that pretty much puts themselves in the corner of the heretical Abp. Cushing, not to mention Pius XII. But I already know CMRI LOVE Pius XII and NFP.
Maybe being Jєωιѕн wouldn't have necessarily made him a bad Catholic, but when you tie it together with his liberalism, it certainly suggests Marrano infiltration, once again.
The judgment of the sainted pontiff that Father Gabriel is talking about is Pius X's letter defending Newman. First of all, this is a letter, not Magisterial. Secondly, the letter is wrong, and is a lousy moment for Pius X. Thirdly, Pius X is probably not a saint because Pius XII probably lost the office.
For those saying that I have dared to question Pius X, well, Pius X dared to question Pius IX, and many others of high standing, because as it says in the Catholic Encyclopedia --
"For twenty years Newman lay under imputations at Rome, which misconstrued his teaching and his character. This, which has been called the ostracism of a saintly genius, undoubtedly was due to his former friends, Ward and Manning."
He was mistrusted for a long period of time by many, many good Catholics, so is he supposed to be restored to all favor because of a private letter of Pius X, who in this letter is proven wrong?
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.
Is this some kind of forgery? Why would Pius X question those who questioned Newman as setting themselves in opposition to the Magisterium? What has Newman said that was Magisterial?
It was Newman who questioned the Magisterium, openly denying the need to submit to the Syllabus of Errors, and that is why these "puffed-up" people are against him. I can only guess that Pius X did not have all the information about Gibbons and was judging by his later books, which may indeed be perfectly orthodox.