“But we must hope, for one is obliged to hope it, that the Pope will be driven from Rome, and will not continue the Council, or that there will be another Pope. It is sad he should force us to such wishes.”
(Newman’s Letter to Fr. Ambrose St. John, 22 August, 1870)
We have already addressed that point in general, but have no interest in addressing Larson's points in particular. Also, given his take on the post-conciliar crisis, Larson has no right to be calling others names like "proto-modernist."
As for his letter, yes, that seems to be authentic. However, there is a lot of context there that is relevant that, if missed, can make that whole controversy misunderstood.
Thank you, @S.D. Wright. Do you agree with James Larson that Newman too forcefully deflects the Syllabus of Errors?
For you cited Error #77 as a reproof of Bishop Barron's position on an official state religion in America. (I read the footnotes, as a wise man once advised :) )
But Newman wrote that, in error #77, "the pope the Pope was speaking, not of States universally, but of one particular State, Spain, definitely Spain; secondly, that he was not noting the erroneous proposition directly, or categorically, but was protesting against the breach in many ways of the Concordat on the part of the Spanish government; further, that he was not referring to any work containing the said proposition, nor contemplating any proposition at all; nor, on the other hand, using any word of condemnation whatever, nor using any harsher terms of the Government in question than an expression of "his wonder and distress."....the Pope merely does not think it expedient for every state from this time forth to tolerate every sort of religion on its territory, and to disestablish the Church at once? for this is all that he denies." (Section 7 of the Letter to the Duke of Norfolk)
You raise some good points. In general, I am not a big enthusiast of Newman's defence of the Syllabus, although I think it does make some good points that can be missed. Regarding the point in question, he may or may not be right about the n. 77 itself. But it is clear that the qualifications there do not apply to other papal teachings on the matter, and it is also clear that Newman recognised that in the same text. He suggested that Gregory XVI was perhaps too mild in calling the liberty of conscience he condemned only a "deliramentum", for example.
Thank you, Mr. Wright. Do you agree with James Larson that Newman too forcefully deflects the Syllabus of Errors?
For you cited Error #77 as a reproof of Bishop Barron's position on an official state religion in America. (I read the footnotes, as a wise man once advised :) )
But Newman wrote that, in error #77, "the pope the Pope was speaking, not of States universally, but of one particular State, Spain, definitely Spain; secondly, that he was not noting the erroneous proposition directly, or categorically, but was protesting against the breach in many ways of the Concordat on the part of the Spanish government; further, that he was not referring to any work containing the said proposition, nor contemplating any proposition at all; nor, on the other hand, using any word of condemnation whatever, nor using any harsher terms of the Government in question than an expression of "his wonder and distress."....the Pope merely does not think it expedient for every state from this time forth to tolerate every sort of religion on its territory, and to disestablish the Church at once? for this is all that he denies." (Section 7 of the Letter to the Duke of Norfolk)
Thanks again for stating what is obvious to those who have always found Newman to be a revivified of faith when it flags, that there is not even a whiff of Modernism about Newman. Thise who write nonsense like “he was a prototype-Modernist” and then cite his concerns over the conduct and issue of the Council PRIOR to the definition & overlook his firm adherence after .
As someone wrestling with the Crisis in the Church for over five years now, I feel some despair over the current state of the discussion on the topic: so very much is cited from so many figures, time periods, and different levels of magisterial authority that it seems almost like a "choose your own adventure" in Catholicism today. This while 99% of the pew sitters in the Novus Ordo have no notion of any problems at all.
This one article is worth your entire theological output. It is SO helpful! You just synthesized a now irrefutable “opinion “ re. automatic loss of office , which establishes the Sede V. position on St Peter’s Rock. You brought light when there was uncertainty. You made what was complex so simple to understand. Thank you! 🙏
"...a Pope who teaches heresy ipso facto ceases to be Pope."
An interesting fact is that the The Fathers of the First Vatican Council concluded that no Pope had ever been a heretic - not Liberius, Honorius I, John XII, John XXII, nor any other name that is brought up in association with the accusation of “papal heresy.” Nor had any pope failed to maintain Apostolic Tradition in doctrine, worship, sacramental rites, discipline or anything essential to the Catholic faith & practice. NEVER HAPPENED AND NEVER WILL. The Holy Spirit also prevents heretics from being elected pope (like the Freemason Rampolla in 1903), and true pope can't even teach, promote or approve anything injurious to faith or morals or perfect worship, and not just when teaching ex cathedra.. This is the Tradition of the Church.
"...this See of Saint Peter always remains unblemished by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord & Savior to the prince of his disciples: ‘I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail....’” - Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, 4.
This fact gives greater weight to the reality that a pope was validly elected two days before the Freemason "Saint" John XXIII appeared before the world (to the acclaim of the international media and Jewish and Masonic organizations), then threatened into invalid abdication, becoming the prophesied "pope in exile."
“The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts very new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarez, Bellarmine and Bosius that Rome shall apostatize from the Faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ [Cardinal Siri/Pope Gregory XVII, 1958] and return to its ancient paganism. ...Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible; hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.” - Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861, London: Burns and Lambert, pp. 88-90)
While writing more about Newman, could you please answer the concern raised by James Larson that Newman was a proto-Modernist?
https://waragainstbeing.com/partvi/
https://waragainstbeing.com/partvii/
And is it true that Newman wrote:
“But we must hope, for one is obliged to hope it, that the Pope will be driven from Rome, and will not continue the Council, or that there will be another Pope. It is sad he should force us to such wishes.”
(Newman’s Letter to Fr. Ambrose St. John, 22 August, 1870)
We have already addressed that point in general, but have no interest in addressing Larson's points in particular. Also, given his take on the post-conciliar crisis, Larson has no right to be calling others names like "proto-modernist."
As for his letter, yes, that seems to be authentic. However, there is a lot of context there that is relevant that, if missed, can make that whole controversy misunderstood.
Thank you, @S.D. Wright. Do you agree with James Larson that Newman too forcefully deflects the Syllabus of Errors?
For you cited Error #77 as a reproof of Bishop Barron's position on an official state religion in America. (I read the footnotes, as a wise man once advised :) )
But Newman wrote that, in error #77, "the pope the Pope was speaking, not of States universally, but of one particular State, Spain, definitely Spain; secondly, that he was not noting the erroneous proposition directly, or categorically, but was protesting against the breach in many ways of the Concordat on the part of the Spanish government; further, that he was not referring to any work containing the said proposition, nor contemplating any proposition at all; nor, on the other hand, using any word of condemnation whatever, nor using any harsher terms of the Government in question than an expression of "his wonder and distress."....the Pope merely does not think it expedient for every state from this time forth to tolerate every sort of religion on its territory, and to disestablish the Church at once? for this is all that he denies." (Section 7 of the Letter to the Duke of Norfolk)
You raise some good points. In general, I am not a big enthusiast of Newman's defence of the Syllabus, although I think it does make some good points that can be missed. Regarding the point in question, he may or may not be right about the n. 77 itself. But it is clear that the qualifications there do not apply to other papal teachings on the matter, and it is also clear that Newman recognised that in the same text. He suggested that Gregory XVI was perhaps too mild in calling the liberty of conscience he condemned only a "deliramentum", for example.
This was recently published:
https://novusordowatch.org/2025/08/was-cardinal-newman-a-modernist/
Thank you, Mr. Wright. Do you agree with James Larson that Newman too forcefully deflects the Syllabus of Errors?
For you cited Error #77 as a reproof of Bishop Barron's position on an official state religion in America. (I read the footnotes, as a wise man once advised :) )
But Newman wrote that, in error #77, "the pope the Pope was speaking, not of States universally, but of one particular State, Spain, definitely Spain; secondly, that he was not noting the erroneous proposition directly, or categorically, but was protesting against the breach in many ways of the Concordat on the part of the Spanish government; further, that he was not referring to any work containing the said proposition, nor contemplating any proposition at all; nor, on the other hand, using any word of condemnation whatever, nor using any harsher terms of the Government in question than an expression of "his wonder and distress."....the Pope merely does not think it expedient for every state from this time forth to tolerate every sort of religion on its territory, and to disestablish the Church at once? for this is all that he denies." (Section 7 of the Letter to the Duke of Norfolk)
If you want Mr Wright to reply you’ll improve your chances if you reply to one of his comments or tag @sdwright directly.
https://open.substack.com/pub/wmreview/p/newman-would-be-the-fourth-ipso-facto?utm_source=direct&r=1nacpy&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=142519336
Thanks again for stating what is obvious to those who have always found Newman to be a revivified of faith when it flags, that there is not even a whiff of Modernism about Newman. Thise who write nonsense like “he was a prototype-Modernist” and then cite his concerns over the conduct and issue of the Council PRIOR to the definition & overlook his firm adherence after .
Great article, well written, very convincing.
As someone wrestling with the Crisis in the Church for over five years now, I feel some despair over the current state of the discussion on the topic: so very much is cited from so many figures, time periods, and different levels of magisterial authority that it seems almost like a "choose your own adventure" in Catholicism today. This while 99% of the pew sitters in the Novus Ordo have no notion of any problems at all.
It's Leo's way of keeping his (dead) enemies closer!
This one article is worth your entire theological output. It is SO helpful! You just synthesized a now irrefutable “opinion “ re. automatic loss of office , which establishes the Sede V. position on St Peter’s Rock. You brought light when there was uncertainty. You made what was complex so simple to understand. Thank you! 🙏
Many thanks Father!
You may find something enlightening in my comment.
Do you think the modernists may use Newman’s teachings from when he was still Anglican to undermine the Catholic teaching on the papacy?
"...a Pope who teaches heresy ipso facto ceases to be Pope."
An interesting fact is that the The Fathers of the First Vatican Council concluded that no Pope had ever been a heretic - not Liberius, Honorius I, John XII, John XXII, nor any other name that is brought up in association with the accusation of “papal heresy.” Nor had any pope failed to maintain Apostolic Tradition in doctrine, worship, sacramental rites, discipline or anything essential to the Catholic faith & practice. NEVER HAPPENED AND NEVER WILL. The Holy Spirit also prevents heretics from being elected pope (like the Freemason Rampolla in 1903), and true pope can't even teach, promote or approve anything injurious to faith or morals or perfect worship, and not just when teaching ex cathedra.. This is the Tradition of the Church.
"...this See of Saint Peter always remains unblemished by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord & Savior to the prince of his disciples: ‘I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail....’” - Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, 4.
novusordowatch.org/2022/04/felix-cappello-heretical-pope-impossible;
novusordowatch.org/2015/04/heretical-popes-first-vatican-council
This fact gives greater weight to the reality that a pope was validly elected two days before the Freemason "Saint" John XXIII appeared before the world (to the acclaim of the international media and Jewish and Masonic organizations), then threatened into invalid abdication, becoming the prophesied "pope in exile."
whitesmoke1958.com
novusordowatch.org/2016/10/smoke-signals-white-smoke-1958
“The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts very new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarez, Bellarmine and Bosius that Rome shall apostatize from the Faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ [Cardinal Siri/Pope Gregory XVII, 1958] and return to its ancient paganism. ...Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible; hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.” - Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861, London: Burns and Lambert, pp. 88-90)
Submit to the Roman Pontiff. Please don't make me ask again.
We will when there is one
and it's you who decides when there is a new one that fits your standards?
You are way too short for this ride if you think that is a meaningful response.
Time-wasting is banned, as are time-wasters themsleves.
This one has stuck with me.