Referring to Newman Against the Liberals: 25 Classic Sermons,selected with a Preface by Michael Davies, a reader writes:Reading these pages I am impressed anew by the faithfulness of Michael Davies, a layman and a high school teacher who had such a far-reaching impact through his long labors. Also renewed appreciation for Newman, who with Wilfrid Ward after him so acutely saw where modern thought was heading even as it was just emerging out of the gate ...Our reader next refers us to William Doino's article, "The Real John Henry Newman" (First Thoughts, September 20, 2012), with the comment: "Fascinating dogged exchange in the comments." Fascinating indeed!
Catholics still like to laugh at the Episcopal Church. I cannot blame them, but I think we remain overly unaware of our own blind spot (is that redundant?)."The devastation wrought by Liberalism within the Church of England in the 19th century has been magnified a thousandfold within the Catholic Church since the Second Vatican Council. It seems hard to believe that much of what is included in this collection ... was not addressed specifically to the contemporary situation within Western Catholicism..."
[Hat tip to J.M.]
What were the issues that divided Newman and Manning? Any comments or references?
ReplyDelete"... it was precisely Manning's conviction that great evil and danger did impend, and that the definition [of infallibility] was, indeed, a stern and painful necessity. You would think that Manning and Newman lived in different Churches, as, in a sense, they did, that they should see things so differently. Only one who lived, as Newman admitted he had, "very much indoors all my life" could imagine that the Church in 1870 was at rest and unthreatened. Whereas Manning, who "battled for the Church in the World," perceived a necessity that escaped Newman. I said at the beginning of this talk that the effort to comprehend the disagreement between Manning and Newman on its own terms might still help us understand how we got to where we are as Catholics today. Obviously, Newman or Manning can stand for the different ways we see the Church.
ReplyDelete"Newman was fearful that an undue emphasis on the authority of the pope would imbalance the delicate relations that existed in the Church between pope and bishops, hierarchy and faithful, magisterium and theologians. He was concerned, we would say today, about subsidiarity and collegiality; freedom of thought within the Church and the role of the laity.... Manning, on the other hand, was most concerned about how the Church could carry out its mission in the world. He was, we would say today, concerned about issues of evangelization, of social justice, even of the liberation of peoples from the oppressive structures of nineteenth century state and society.
"Manning was, like our late pope, John Paul II, convinced that internal cohesion was necessary for the Church to be an effective witness for Christian values against the statism and materialism - communist or capitalist - that were the false gods of his day as they still are of ours."
[Jeffrey von Arx, S.J., "Two Cardinals: John Henry Newman, Henry Edward Manning and the Victorian Catholic Church"]
Dear Ralph. Google War Against Being a site where a Mr. Larson has written serious and substantial critiques in opposition to Newman and Our Holy Father.
ReplyDeleteIn the column on the left there are two links to his ideas about Newman
I have reasons that should be obvious, I think, for having an affinity for the late great Cardinal Newman. In many ways, he led me toward (if not into) the Church. If one studies the influence Newman had on converts, there were probably well over a hundred with whom he had direct epistolary if not personal contact, whom he was responsible for leading into the Church.
ReplyDeleteI say not only "late" but "great" Newman, not because of his shortcomings. I am well aware of these (Orestes Brownson has a withering critique of his Nominalism as well as flaws in his famed Essay; and know what sites like Tradition in Action say about him, some -- not all -- of which are unfortunately true).
I say "great" because I believe him to be great; that even though he is often co-opted by the modernists and used for their purposes, that their sentiments are not his; that even though he was often regarded with alarm in some quarters (even in Rome), his then alleged "liberalism" was not what we confront today or even in the modernism that followed hard upon his death, but something altogether different. I could be wrong about some of this; but I feel in good company: I'm with Michael Davies on this one.
Anonymous: The van Arx article was very helpful, thank you, although the comparison of Manning with John Paul the Great Koran-Kisser is an absolutely ludicrous specimen of political grovelling.
ReplyDeletePP: it seems like your judgment of Newman's greatness is costing you several "even thoughs." But thanks for the reference to Orestes Brownson's essay, which I have not read.