Rorate Caeli

The Newman Lecture in Melbourne:
- Found, not Manufactured: Newman, the Roman Rite, and Cranmer's Prayer Book

The Inaugural Blessed John Henry Newman Lecture was delivered by Dr Stephen McInerney (Senior Lecturer in Literature, Campion College).


“Marvellous Disclosures”: 
John Henry Newman’s Anglican Reflections on the Liturgy(1)

Delivered at the Parish of Blessed John Henry Newman, Melbourne
12th October, 2014

[High Mass for All Souls at the Birmingham Oratory - Entrance]

Over fifty years ago, as he reflected on the legacy of John Henry Newman, Fr Frank O’Malley asked: “What was the spirit of this man who is with us a constant reference and a standard and a sign?” By way of an answer, he pointed to something that few Newman scholars before or since have sought to highlight:

the spirit of Newman moved within the spirit of the liturgy, the liturgy thought of in its most significant sense as the very rhythm of Christian existence, stirred and centred by the life of Christ. Newman absorbed the liturgical character of existence. He lived by the liturgy. (2)

It was as an Anglican that “the liturgical character of existence” first impressed itself upon Newman. On the eve of his fourteenth birthday his mother made him a gift of The Book of Common Prayer – or would have done had he not preempted her offer by buying the book himself for her to give to him, which she then did “without saying a word”, bemused no doubt by her “impatient headstrong” boy. (3) From the time of his ordination he preached regularly on the importance of the sacraments and the indispensability of public prayer, eventually coming to believe that the Church’s public prayer was the means through which the Church is visibly manifested in time and space. And during the early years of the Oxford Movement he came to regard the Prayer Book as the depository of Apostolic teaching in England, and a sure sign that the Anglican Communion belonged to and expressed the Catholic Faith – a belief he would gradually question.

Newman was known to celebrate the services of the Church with great care and devotion, (4) and to encourage the faithful to attend them regularly, believing (as Donald Withey writes) “the daily office and frequent celebration of communion to be of the essence of the life of the Church”. (5) “Religious worship”, Newman would assert, “supplies all our spiritual need...[and] suits every mood of mind and variety of circumstance”. (6) At Littlemore, as Pusey recounted in 1837, during parts of the Daily Service Newman followed the ancient practice of kneeling “towards the East, the same way as the congregation, turning to the congregation in the parts directed to them”, (7) though he always retained the protestant practice of celebrating the Sunday Communion at the north end of the holy table. (8) Although he was not principally concerned with ritualism, (9) he had a great appreciation for the importance of outward forms of public prayer and the liturgical cycle whose yearly round impressed the “great revealed verities”(10) of the Faith onto the memories and imaginations of the faithful.

The liturgy inspired and shaped Newman’s preaching. An obvious example of this is that the sanctoral and seasonal cycle of the liturgical year became the organizing principle of Volume Two of the Parochial Sermons, first published in 1835. Despite the sermons having been written over many years, Newman arranged them not in the order in which they were written but according to their place in the liturgical calendar. (11) In doing so he situated the volume in an Anglican tradition of liturgically ordered works that includes George Herbert’s The Temple (1633), Robert Nelson’s Companion for the Fasts and Festivals of the Church of England (1704), Charles Wheatly’s A Rational Illustration Upon the Book of Common Prayer (1710), and John Keble’s The Christian Year (1827). Beyond the liturgical arrangement of Volume Two, Newman’s sermons more generally reflect, as Placid Murray writes, the “range of Christian feeling aroused by the mysteries of Christ’s life as commemorated in the liturgy”. (12)

Unfortunately Newman did not leave us any single study of the liturgy, either as an Anglican or as a Roman Catholic – there is no “Essay on the Development of the Liturgy” to go hand in hand with his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845), although the latter draws on liturgical examples (sometimes questionably) to illustrate the principle of doctrinal development. Instead, we must search for Newman’s reflections on the liturgy among sermons, tracts, lectures and letters, some of which take the liturgy as their main subject while others introduce it as part of a larger polemic on ecclesiology or the nature of tradition. It is therefore thought in a coherent form.

In what follows I want to look at three aspects of Newman’s Anglican thought on the liturgy. Firstly, I will explore Newman’s view of the liturgy as embodied tradition, which we attempt to reform at our peril, a view he developed in response to proposed changes to the Anglican liturgy in the 1830s. In doing so, by looking at examples from Newman’s sermons, Tracts and letters, I will, secondly, explore Newman’s liturgical spirit before, thirdly, showing how Newman’s faith in the Anglican Church was gradually eroded by his realization that its liturgy deviated from the Catholic Church’s liturgical tradition. What this all means for us, in the Catholic Church today, will be the focus of my concluding remarks.


It is a neglected fact of English Church history that the Oxford Movement emerged in large part as a reaction against proposed alterations to the Anglican liturgy, albeit within the larger context of political and social reform deplored by the founders of the Movement – John Keble, Edward Pusey, Richard Hurrell Froude and John Henry Newman. It was, from its inception, what we in the Catholic Church today might recognize as a traditionalist movement, although a somewhat ambiguous one historically, since the liturgical form it endeavored to preserve was itself occasioned by the Protestant Reformation, a moment in history that some members of the Oxford Movement, including eventually Newman himself, came to deplore. Be that as it may, the Oxford Movement, according to the Cambridge historian Owen Chadwick, “was primarily concerned with the law of prayer, and only secondarily with the law of belief. It was aware that creed and prayer were inseparable… It always saw dogma in relation to worship”. (13)

The first Book of Common Prayer for use in the Church of England, which was principally the work of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, was published in 1549 in the reign of Edward VI. It was amended by Cranmer three years later, in 1552, to incorporate a more radical, less Catholic eucharistic theology. During the restoration of Catholicism under Queen Mary, Cranmer’s liturgy was replaced by the Sarum Rite, from which it was originally derived, but it was soon reintroduced under Elizabeth I, in 1559, who nonetheless had it modified to placate Catholic tastes, removing the so- called Black Rubric which had prohibited an all but symbolic view of the Eucharist. It was added to again under James I in 1604 and the text of the Prayer Book, if not its use (it was banned during the Cromwellian interregnum) remained stable for the next two centuries.

Calls for liturgical reform grew steadily in the early nineteenth century, especially from 1830 onwards, alongside moves that would allow non-Anglicans and non-believing Anglicans to determine the fate of the Church of England through various acts of parliament. The possibility became a reality with the passing of the Reform Bill in 1832. From that time, according to William Palmer, the Reformed parliament, “presided over by a ministry connected with all that was dangerous in religious principle, zealous friends of Rationalists, Deists, Socinians, Dissenters, and Roman Catholics… [was] bent on the destruction of the Church”. (14)  Worse was to come. According to Lawrence Barman, in his article “The Liturgical Dimension of the Oxford Tracts”, although initially “the bishops as a group had been hostile to parliamentary reform and reform in general”, by 1833 some of them, including the Bishop of London, were promoting liturgical changes, including the abolition of the Athanasian creed. (15) Evangelicals who downplayed the significance of stable liturgical worship, and Anglican liberals who downplayed the role of worship and the importance of orthodox belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation, added their voices to those calling for reform.

From the first suggestion of alterations to the liturgy John Henry Newman, a fellow of Oriel College, Oxford, and an Anglican priest, was alarmed. In a letter to E.M. Rudd, in January of 1830, as he was preparing his course of sermons on the liturgy, he noted that the liturgy more than anything else accounted for the attachment of the faithful to the Church of England. Rejecting his correspondence’s evident enthusiasm for liturgical changes, Newman explained the reasons for his own liturgical conservatism. Affection for the liturgy, he argued:

is the great hold of the Church in the minds of the multitude … the influence she exerts in the hearts of her people is chiefly by a reverential attachment to those prayers which they have heard from childhood and have been their solace often in their most trying seasons, and have shed a grace on the high solemnities of marriages and births. – Should we not dread disturbing this feeling? (16)

Newman echoed this sentiment when preaching a month later, in February1830. The words of the liturgy, he argued, “are bound up with our recollections from childhood… All the chief areas of our life have been blest to us by the words of public prayer”. “For all these reasons”, he concludes, “the liturgy demands our affection and reverence” (17)

By 1833, as he told Henry Wilberforce, he had helped “set up Societies here – for the defence of the Liturgy”, (18) a line repeated in dozens of letters, to various correspondents, written in the same year. To Charles Golightly, Newman stated that in addition to the doctrine of the Apostolic Succession, “a defence of the Prayer Book from Socinian etc.[sic] alterations is another of our objects.” (19) Newman deplored those Anglican Evangelicals, he later recalled to another correspondent, who “thought to ride into the Church in this her hour of peril, to make certain reforms, to alter her liturgy”. (20)

In Tract 3 (“Thoughts respectfully addressed to the Clergy on Alterations in the Liturgy”), of the Tracts for the Times, Newman spoke of the danger of changing the Prayer Book by even “one tittle”. A small change might soon lead to a greater change, until the whole faith has been distorted and the Church’s memory impaired. “The changes called immaterial”, he argues, “often contain in themselves the germ of some principle, of which they are thus the introduction”. (21)  There was thus, as he would term it in Tract 6, a present obligation to observe the primitive practice as it had come down to the English Church through the centuries. The defense of the Prayer Book therefore also meant restoring disused ancient practices, such as the regular celebration of Holy Communion. (22) The defense of the Prayer Book went hand in hand with a more general defense of liturgical rites and customs as necessary to the faith. “Rites and ordinances, far from being unmeaning, are in their nature capable of impressing our memories and imaginations with the great revealed verities”, Newman would argue in Tract 34. (23)

Newman’s most sustained statement on the relationship between orthodoxy and orthopraxis came in a sermon he preached on the Feast of the Circumcision, in January 1831. (24) The sermon anticipates the objection that some services carried out in the Church are not expressly ordained in the Bible, by arguing that in fact Christ himself presents to us the liturgical spirit that should animate Christians:

Now, from this obedience to the Jewish Law, enjoined and displayed by our Blessed Lord and his Apostles, we learn the great importance of retaining those religious forms to which we are accustomed. (25)

Thomas Arnold had spoken of the “utter incapability of any outward bodily action to produce in us an inward spiritual belief” (26) and Newman appears to have Arnold (and his kind) in mind in the following passage:

We sometimes meet with men who ask why we observe these or those ceremonies or practices; why, for example, we use forms of prayer so cautiously and strictly? Or why we persist in kneeling at the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, why in bowing at the name of Jesus? … Why we lay such stress upon such things? (27)

Newman responds by pointing to the connection between outward observances and inward belief. Because of the relationship between external forms and inward belief, it is dangerous to alter the “externals of faith and devotion”:

The spirit of religion has so penetrated and quickened [the liturgical forms], that to destroy them is, in respect to the multitude of men, to unsettle and dislodge the religious principle itself…. Precious doctrines are strung, like jewels, upon slender threads…. Rites which the Church has appointed, and with reason – for the Church’s authority is from Christ – being long used, cannot be disused without harm to souls.” (28)

Newman returned to this theme in his sermon “Reverence in Worship”, preached on October 30, 1836. (29) Meditating on a text from the Book of Samuel (“Samuel ministered before the Lord, being a child, girded with a linen ephod”), (30) he compares and contrasts Samuel and Saul. “As a Levite, or minister of God”, Newman writes, Samuel “was taken into God’s special service from the first; he lived in His Temple; nay, while yet a child, he was honoured with the apparel of a sacred function”. (31)  Although he had an ordinary coat made for him by his mother, “in Divine Service he wore, not this, but a garment which would both express, and impress upon him, reverence”. (32) By contrast Saul shows the want of reverence – his nakedness when prophesying to Samuel shows that he did not receive “the garment of salvation”. The special garment that Samuel wears therefore represents salvation. Newman was not using this analogy in order to justify the wearing of vestments, although the logic of his position would seem to lead there; but it does reinforce his argument that the externals of religion, in particular the Church’s sacraments, rites and places of worship, are related in important ways to internal religious feeling. They both incarnate these feelings and, in turn, reinforce them, expressing reverence and impressing it on the faithful.

In Advent 1838, Newman preached a sermon on “Worship, A Preparation for Christ’s Coming” in which he connects, in keeping with a longstanding tradition, Christ’s coming at Christmas with his Second Coming, and thereby connects the specific idea of Advent worship as a preparation for Christmas with the idea of worship in general as a preparation for meeting our judge. The liturgical worship of God, Newman argues, is the best and most fitting way to prepare to meet Christ as Judge and to prepare for the vision of God. It is the way God has given us to prepare to see him.
“This indeed”, he says, “is the most momentous reason for religious worship”. (33)

The liturgy prepares us to see God by prefiguring the encounter we will have with Him upon dying. “Let us then take this view of religious service; it is ‘going out to meet the Bridegroom,’ who, if not seen ‘in His beauty,’ will appear in consuming fire. Besides its other momentous reasons, it is a preparation for an awful event, which shall one day be.” (34) The liturgy, seen in this light, is a training ground for heavenly worship. It molds our character, placing on our lips the words of praise, and gradually adjusts the eyes of our souls so that they may receive the light of God (“which is fearful before it is ecstatic”) as something beautiful rather than as “consuming fire”. (35) “Every now and then”, in the liturgy, he writes, “marvellous disclosures are made to us of what is behind it. At times we seem to catch a glimpse of a Form which we shall hereafter see face to face.” (36)


Given Newman’s very reverent attitude to the Anglican liturgy as laid down in the Book of Common Prayer, how did he come to leave it behind? Newman had in fact expressed growing concerns about Anglican worship even while he was one of its most vocal defenders.

Newman’s public and private statements on the liturgy reveal a man divided. As he plumbed the spirituality of the Prayer Book for its many treasures, he also became more aware of its many problems. As he declared it the “standard” (37) of Anglican teaching and the “immediate, present and living authority” on which he and his fellow Tractarians “based their theological system” (38), in private he was pulling back from the full implications of such claims, cautioning one correspondent against relying solely on the Prayer Book as a “guide in all things”:

I cannot allow that the Prayer Book is, or was ever intended to be, a repository of the perfect Gospel. It is part of the original Catholic services – and as such is the voice of all Saints in all times – but it is a matter of history that its present form was decided by a number of accidents. (39)

In 1831 Newman acknowledged to Harriett Newman that he would prefer to be a restorer of the Anglican liturgy along Catholic lines rather than the anti-reformer circumstances had forced him to become. Were it up to him he would substitute the first Edwardian prayer book “for the present one”. (40) Some of his followers, including Froude, wanted to go further, by replacing the Book of Common Prayer with the Roman Rite in English translation. Instead of seriously countenancing these possibilities, Newman had to speak against liturgical change for fear that advocating his own vision of the liturgy would undermine the authority of the Church and thereby open the way for mischief-making on the part of Evangelicals and liberals who had their own ideas of radical reform.

But the closer Newman looked at the Prayer Book the less convinced he was that the changes wrought at the Reformation did not touch fundamentals. In a letter to Hugh James Rose on May 23, 1836, he expressed doubts about the status of the Prayer Book, in particular the service of Holy Communion, as an expression of the Catholic and Apostolic faith. Identifying problems with the Eucharistic prayer in the Prayer Book (the lack of any prayer to the Holy Spirit, and the lack of prayers for the dead), which he called “defects in doctrine, looking at the matter by Antiquity”, he declared: “Alterations in the Eucharistic Service seem to me a sin – not in us but in our forefathers. It is our misfortune – and I bear it resignedly, as I should the loss of a limb.” (41)

He told another correspondent that the liturgical “mutilations at the Reformation do not hurt our reverence for what is left”. (42) But given that such unfortunate mutilations involved living with “defects in doctrine”, how long could he bear it? William Ward reported to Pusey, in July 1841, that Newman thought it doubtful “whether there can be said to be a valid sacrament administered unless the Priest adds mentally what our Eucharistic service omits”. (43) And by the end of that year, in the wake of Tract 90, Newman declared: “The Church of God is under eclipse among us”. This prompted him to ask:

Where is our unity, for which Christ prayed? where our charity, which He enjoined? where the faith once delivered, when each has his own doctrine? where our visibility, which was to be a light to the world? where that awful worship, which struck fear into every soul? (44)

There was also a growing disjunction between Newman’s Anglican faith and his own liturgical practice. After his retirement to Littlemore, in the early 1840s, a large part of Newman’s day was taken up celebrating not the offices prescribed in the Prayer Book but those set out in the Roman Breviary, albeit with alterations. (45) But by 1844 Newman and his companions no longer had any doctrinal objections to the celebration of the Roman Breviary “in its entirety”. (46) A year later Newman was a Roman Catholic, and his belief in the apostolicity of the Roman Rite had helped bring him there.


What, then, do Newman’s Anglican reflections on the liturgy have to teach us today in the Catholic Church? It seems to me that, although the liturgy he was defending proved to be deficient by the Catholic Church’s standards, the attitude Newman brought to its defense was nonetheless profoundly Catholic. Newman argued that the Church should not “disturb” the feeling of the faithful by altering the liturgy, certainly not in any dramatic way. Have events in the modern Catholic Church not proved him right in this? Has not the feeling of the Catholic faithful been profoundly disturbed and even radically altered by the liturgical reform sanctioned by Paul VI in the wake of the Second Vatican Council? Have we not seen come true, in the case of the modern Church, Newman’s prediction that the “religious principle itself” would be unsettled and dislodged “in respect to the multitude” of people, as a result of the liturgical changes? Have not souls been harmed, as Newman predicted they would be, because a liturgical form that had been “long used” (for centuries) was suddenly abandoned in 1969? In fact, Newman’s insights, from the 1830s, prophetically anticipated those of Cardinal Ottaviani, who in addressing Paul VI in 1969, said: “fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable
lessening of faith”? (47)

If Newman would have been shocked by Paul VI’s virtual abolition of the ancient Roman Rite and its replacement by what Joseph Ratzinger himself called “a banal on the spot product”, what would he have made of the role of the reigning pontiff in this saga? Newman, as is well known, was an ‘inopportunist’ when it came to the definition of Papal infallibility. He believed in the teaching, but did not wish it dogmatically defined, in large part because he was hostile to the ultramontanist spirit of those who were most keen for the definition (some of whom, including Ward and Manning, had been his former disciples in the Oxford Movement). Newman, I am sure, would have seen Paul VI’s role in the liturgical changes as an abuse of papal authority of the kind he was so desperate for the Church to avoid, but which the ultramontanist spirit he so deplored made almost inevitable. He would have concurred, I believe, with the following words of the man who would go on to beatify him:

After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope's authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not "manufactured" by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity. . . . The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition. . . . (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy)

Ratzinger speaks here of liturgy “ ‘manufactured’ by the authorities” – a clear allusion to the Pauline liturgical revolution. By contrast, Ratzinger himself has promoted the idea of the organic nature of liturgical development and liturgical reform. With this in mind, I would like to leave you with Newman’s own words, in his essay on “The Mission of St Benedict”. He is speaking here of the development of Benedictine monasticsm, but his words are equally applicable to the traditional Roman liturgy fostered and preserved most supremely to this day by Benedictines, including those of Le Barroux, Fontgombault and their respective daughter-houses and corresponding convents. We can say of the traditional Roman Rite what Newman said of St Benedict’s order. It is a liturgy:

Not… proceeding from one mind at a particular date, and appearing all at once … but it is … diverse, complex, and irregular, and variously ramified, rich rather than symmetrical, with many origins and centres and new beginnings and the action of local influences, like some great natural growth; with tokens, on the face of it, of its being a divine work, not the mere creation of human genius. Instead of progressing on plan and system and from the will of a superior, it has shot forth and run out as if spontaneously, and has shaped itself according to events, from an irrepressible fulness of life within, and from the energetic self-action of its parts, like those symbolical creatures in the prophet's vision, which "went every one of them straight forward, whither the impulse of the spirit was to go." It has been poured out over the earth, rather than been sent, with a silent mysterious operation, while men slept… and thus it has come down to us, not risen up among us, and is found rather than established. (48)

1 This lecture derives in part from a longer dissertation completed under the supervision of Prof. Eamon Duffy at the University of Cambridge in 2012. I am grateful to Prof. Duffy for his guidance, especially in relation to Newman’s letters and sermons. The conclusions, of course, are entirely my own. An earlier version of the lecture was delivered at the second annual Australian Catholic Students Association Newman Dinner, June 7, 2014.
2 Frank O’Malley, “The Thinker in the Church: The Spirit of Newman”, The Review of Politics, Vol.
21, No. 1 (1959): p. 6.
3 Newman recalls this in a note he added years later to the inside cover of the prayer book in question. See John Henry Newman, The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman, ed. at the Birmingham Oratory by Stephen Dessain, Ian Ker, Thomas Gornall (Oxford, published between 1961- 2008), Vol. 1, p. 15. Future references to the Letters and Diaries will use the abbreviation LD followed by the
volume and page number.
4 Donald A. Withey, John Henry Newman: The Liturgy and the Breviary, Their Influence on his life as an Anglican (London, 1992), p. 14.
5 Withey, Newman: Liturgy and Breviary, p. 14.
6 John Henry Newman, “Religious Worship a Remedy for Excitements” (8 Feb, 1835), Parochial and Plain Sermons, in 8 volumes, (New ed. London, 1889), Vol. 3, Sermon 23, p. 336. Subsequent references to the Parochial and Plain Sermons will use the abbreviation PPS, followed by the volume, sermon and page numbers.
7 “E.B. Pusey to Richard Bigot”, LD, vol. 6, p. 141.
8 Withey, Newman: Liturgy and Breviary, p. 12.
9 Withey, Newman: Liturgy and Breviary, p. 12.
10 Tract 34 “Rites and Customs of the Church”, Tracts for the Times, Vol. I (London, 1834), p. 7.
11 For this observation, I am indebted to Prof. Eamon Duffy’s comments on the draft of my dissertation.
12 Placid Murray, Newman the Oratorian (Dublin, 1969), 31-2.
13 Owen Chadwick, The Mind of the Oxford Movement: Tractarian Essays (Cambridge, 1990), p. 1.
14 William Palmer, A Narrative of Events Connected with the Publication of the Tracts for the Times (London, 1883), p. 38, quoted in Lawrence F. Barman, “The Liturgical Dimension of the Oxford Tracts, 1833-1841”, Journal of British Studies, Vol. 7, No. 2 (May, 1968), p. 93.
15 Barman, “The Liturgical Dimension of the Oxford Tracts”, p. 92.
16 “To E.M. Rudd”, Jan, 1830. LD, vol. 2, p. 190.
17 “The Liturgy public – its three peculiar uses”, Feb 7, 1830. Sermons on the Liturgy, pp. 73-4.
18 “To Henry Wilberforce”, July 16, 1833. LD, vol. 4, p. 9.
19 “To Charles Golightly”, Aug. 11, 1833. LD, vol. 4, p. 29.
20 “To Miss M. R. Giberne”, March 20, 1836. LD, vol. 5, p. 263.
21 Tract 3, “Thoughts… On Alterations in the Liturgy”, Tracts for Times, Vol. 1, pp.4-5.
22 Tract 6, “The Present Obligation of Primitive Practice. A sin of the Church”, Tracts for Times, Vol.
23 Tract 34, “Rites and Customs of the Church”, Tracts for the Times, Vol. 1, p. 7.
24 “Ceremonies of the Church” (Jan 1, 1831), PPS, vol. 2, 7.
25 PPS, vol. 2, 7, p. 71-72.
26 Thomas Arnold, Fragment on the Church, p. 29, quoted in Alf Härdelin, The Tractarian
Understanding of the Eucharist (Upsalla, 1965), p. 91.
27 PPS, vol. 2, 7, p. 72.
28 PPS, vol. 2, 7, p. 75-78 .
29 “Reverence in Worship” (Oct. 30, 1836), PPS, vol. 8, 1.
30 1 Samuel ii. 18
31 PPS, vol. 8, 1, p. 1.
32 PPS, vol. 8, 1, p. 2.
33 “Worship, a Preparation for Christ’s Coming” (Dec 2, 1838), PPS, vol. 5, 1, p. 7.
34 PPS, vol. 5, 1, p. 8.
35 PPS, vol. 5, 1, p. 9.
36 PPS, vol. 5, 1, p. 10.
37 “To E.B. Pusey”, March 18, 1841. LD, vol. 8, p. 97.
38 John Henry Newman, Certain Difficulties felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teaching Vol. 1 (London,
1888), p. 131.
39 “To Miss M.R. Giberne”, May 15, 1836. LD, vol. 5, p. 295-6.
40 “To Harriett Newman”, Oct 16, 1831. LD, vol. 2, p. 367.
41 “To Hugh James Rose”, May 23, 1836. LD, vol. 5, pp. 304-305.
42 “To Thomas Henderson”, April 8, 1838. LD, vol. 6., p .226.
43 W.G. Ward to E.B. Pusey, July 23, 1841, quoted in Frank Turner, Newman: The Challenge to
Evangelical Religion (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), p. 385.
44 Sermon 22: “Outward and inward notes of the Church” (Dec 5, 1841), SSD, p. 335.
45 Withey, Newman: Liturgy and Breviary, p. 57.
46 Withey, Newman: Liturgy and Breviary, p. 64.
47 Cardinal Ottaviani to Pope Paul VI: “Letter on Novus Ordo Missae”, Rome, September 25th, 1969.
48 “The Mission of St Benedict”, Atlantis, January, 1858, in Historical Sketches, Volume 2, p. 388.