Henry Newman was not unlike Galileo, who also boasted of his superior intellect. When Newman stood for the Oriel Fellowship, he confided to his father that;
   
‘Few have ever attained the facility and comprehension which I arrived at from the regularity and constancy of my reading and the laborious and nerve-bracing and fancy-repressing study of mathematics, which has been my principal subject.’ (Vincent Ferrer Belhl: Pilgrim’s Journey. John Henry Newman, Paulist Press, 2002, p.45)

‘Galileo was the one stock argument against the Church.’--- Cardinal Newman.

Fr Henry Newman’s Galileo, Revelation, and the Educated Man. (1861)
‘One of the characteristics of the day is the renewal of that collision between men of science and believers in Revelation, and of that uneasiness in the public mind as to its results, which are found in the history of the 17th century. Then, Galileo raised the jealousy of Catholics in Italy; but now in England the religious portion of the community, be they Catholic or not, is startled at the discoveries or speculations of geologists, natural historians and linguists. Of course I am speaking, as regards both dates, of the educated classes, of those whose minds have been sufficiently opened to understand the nature of proof, who have a right to ask questions and to weigh the answers given to them. It was of such, we must reasonably suppose, that Father Commissary was tender in 1637 [1633?], and to such he allied in his conversation with Galileo, as he took him in his carriage to the Holy Office. “As we went along,” says Galileo, “he put many questions to me, and showed an earnestness that I should repair the scandal, which I had given to the whole of Italy, by maintaining the opinion of the motion of the Earth; and for all the solid and mathematical reasons which I presented to him, he did but reply to me: “Terra autem in aeternum stabit,’ because ‘Terra autem in aeternum stat,’ as Scripture says.” There could not be a greater shock to religious minds of that day than Galileo’s doctrine, whether they at once rejected it as contrary to the faith, or listened to the arguments by which he enforced it. The feeling was strong enough to effect Galileo’s compulsory recantation, though a pope was then on the throne who was personally friendly to him. Two Sacred Congregations represented the popular voice and passed decrees against the philosopher, which were in force down to the years 1822 and 1837. Such an alarm never can occur again, for the very reason that it has occurred once. At least, for myself, I can say that, had I been brought up in the belief of the immobility of the Earth as though a dogma of Revelation, and had associated it in my mind with the incommunicable dignity of man among created things, with the destinies of the human race, with the locality of Purgatory and Hell, and other Christian doctrines, and then for the first time had heard Galileo’s thesis, and, moreover, the prospect held out to me that perhaps there were myriads of globes like our own all filled with rational creatures as worthy of the Creator’s regard as we are, I should have been at once indignant at its presumption and frightened at its speciousness, as I never can be at any parallel novelties in other human sciences bearing on religion; no, not though I found probable reasons for thinking the first chapters of Genesis were not of an economical character, that there was a pre-Adamite race of rational animals, or that we are now 20,000 years from Noah. For that past controversy and its issue have taught me beyond all mistake, that men of the greatest theological knowledge may firmly believe that scientific conclusions are contrary to the Word of God, when they are not so, and pronounce that to be heresy which is truth. It has taught me, that Scripture is not inspired to convey mere secular knowledge, whether about the heaven or the Earth, or the race of man; and that I need not fear for Revelation whatever truths may be brought to light by means of observation and experience out of the world of phenomena which environs us. And I seem to myself here to be speaking under the protection and sanction of the Sacred Congregation of the Index itself, which has since the time of Galileo prescribed to itself a line of action, indication of its fearlessness of any results which may happen to religion from physical sciences… Consider then the case before us: Galileo on his knees abjured the heresy that the Earth moved but the course of human thought, of observation, investigation and induction, could not be stayed; it went on and had its way. It penetrated and ran through the Catholic world as well as through the nations external to it. And then at length, in our own day, the doctrine, which was the subject of it, was found to be so harmless in a religious point of view, that the books advocating it were taken off the Index, and the prohibition to print and publish the like was withdrawn. But of course the investigation has gone further, and done, or is now even doing, some positive service to the cause which it was accused of opposing. It is on the way to restore to the Earth that prerogative and pre-eminence in the creation which it was thought to compromise. How true it is that nature and revelation are but two separate communications from the same infinite Truth. Nor is this all. Much has been said of late years of the dangerous tendency of geological speculations or researches [long ages]. Well, what harm have they done to the Christian cause... In answer to the supposed improbability of their being planets with rational inhabitants, considering that our globe has such, geology teaches us that, in fact, whatever our religion may accidentally teach us to hope or fear about other worlds, in this world at least, long ages past, we had either no inhabitants at all, or none but those rude and vast brutal forms, which could perform no intelligent homage and service to their Creator. Thus one order of spiritual researches bears upon another, and that in the interest or service of Christianity; and supposing, as some persons seem to believe in their hearts, that these researches are all in the hands of the enemy of God, we have the observable phenomenon of Satan casting out Satan and restoring the balance of physical arguments in favour of Revelation. Now let us suppose that the influences which were in the ascendant throughout Italy in 1637 [1633?] had succeeded in repressing any free investigation on the question of the motion of the Earth. The mind of the educated class would have not the less felt that it was a question, and would have been haunted, and would have been poisoned, by the misgiving that there was some real danger to Revelation in the investigation; for otherwise the ecclesiastical authorities would not have forbidden it. There would have been in the Catholic community a mass of irritated, ill-tempered, feverish and festering suspicion, engendering general scepticism and hatred of the priesthood, and relieving itself in a sort of tacit Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, of which secret societies are the development, and then in sudden outbreaks perhaps of violence and blasphemy. Protestantism is a dismal evil; but in this respect Providence has overruled it for the good. It has, by allowing free inquiry in science, destroyed a bugbear, and thereby saved Catholics so far from the misery of hollow profession and secret infidelity…. If I find that scientific inquiries are running counter against certain theological opinions, it is not expedient to refuse to examine whether these opinions are well founded, merely because those inquiries have not yet reached their issue or attained a triumphant success. The history of Galileo is the proof of it. Are we not at a disadvantage as regards that history? Why, except because our theologians [like who, all the Fathers of the Church, popes and theologians like St Bellarmine?], instead of cautiously examining what Scripture, that is, the Written Word of God, really said, thought it better to put down with a high hand the astronomical views which were opposed to its popular interpretation? The contrary course was pursued in our own day; but what is not against the faith now, was not against the faith three centuries ago; yet Galileo was forced to pronounce his opinions a heresy. It might not indeed have been prudent to have done in 1637 [1633?] what was done in 1822 [1820?]; but, though in the former date it might have been unjustifiable to allow the free publication of his treatises with the sanction of the Church, that does not show that it was justifiable to pronounce that they were against the faith and to enforce the abjuration. I am not certain that I might not go further and advocate the full liberty to teach the motion of the Earth, as a philosophical truth, not only now, but even three centuries ago. The Father Commissary said it was a scandal to the whole of Italy; that is, I suppose, an offence, a shock, a perplexity. This might be, but there was a class, whose claims to consideration are too little regarded now, and were passed over then. I mean the educated class; to them the prohibition would be a real scandal in the true meaning of the word, an occasion of their falling. Men who have sharpened their intellects by exercise and study anticipate the conclusions of the many by some centuries. If the tone of public opinion in 1822 [1820] called for a withdrawal of the prohibition at Trent of the Earth’s movement, the condition of the able and educated called for it in Galileo’s age; and it is as clear to me that their spiritual state ought to be consulted for, as it is difficult to say why in fact it is so often is not… I cannot help feeling that, in high circles, the Church is sometimes looked upon as made up of the hierarchy and the poor, and that the educated portion, men and women, are viewed as a difficulty, an encuмbrance, as the seat and source of heresy, as almost aliens to the Catholic body, whom it would be a great gain, if possible, to annihilate. For all these reasons, I cannot agree with those who would have us stand by what is probably or possibly erroneous, as if it were dogma, till it is acknowledged on all hands, by the force of demonstrations to be actually such. If she affirms, as I do not think she will affirm, that everything was made and finished in a moment though Scripture seems to say otherwise, and though science seems to prove otherwise, I affirm it too, and with an inward and sincere assent. .. It would be nothing else than a great gain to be rid of the anxiety which haunts a person circuмstanced as I am, lest, by keeping silence on points as that on which I have begun to speak, I should perchance be hiding my talent in a napkin..’--- Fr John Henry Newman, 1861.

‘As the Copernican system first made progress... it was generally received... as a truth of Revelation, that the Earth was stationary, and that the sun, fixed in a solid firmament, whirled round the Earth. After a little time, however, and on full consideration, it was found that the Church had decided next to nothing on questions such as these... it surely is a very remarkable feat, considering how widely and how long one certain interpretation of these physical statements in Scripture had been received by Catholics, that the Church should not have formally acknowledged it... Nor was this escape a mere accident, but rather the result of providential superintendence.’--- Fr Henry Newman: The Idea of a University, 1852, p.468.

Feeling safe in his opinion of heliocentrism, uniformitarian long-ages and Darwin’s evolution, a ‘talent’ according to himself, it was easy for John Henry Newman to dismiss Genesis as little more than 50 chapters of science fiction. Again, by separating Catholics into the educated classes and the uneducated classes, he knows that the Church will no longer ‘affirm, that everything was made and finished in a moment though Scripture seems to say otherwise.’

The Patron Saint of Evolution

‘I mean that it is as strange that monkeys should be so like men with no historical connection between them, as the notion that there should be no course of history by which fossil bones got into rocks.’--- H. Newman, quoted in Chieflifejournal.

Then there is the Newman who indicates he would have had no problem with Darwin’s ape-to-man evolution, pre-humans who ‘could perform no intelligent homage and service to their Creator,’ if God chose to do it that way. Again, so much for Moses’s revelation that God created Adam in His image directly from clay, gifted with full knowledge of God and the world necessary for humans.

‘On the question whether Genesis and the theory of evolution would contradict each other, Newman considers the verse “All are of dust” (Eccles 3:20) and concludes: “yet we never were dust—we are from fathers. Why may not the same be the case with Adam? I don’t know why Adam needs be immediately out of dust—Formavit Deus hominem de limo terrae (“God formed man from the dust of the earth” (Gen 2:7)-i.e., out of what really was dust and mud in nature, before He made it what it was, living.” Newman was one of the first theologians (together with Rev. Charles Kingsley and Rev. Frederick Temple, both Anglicans) who were positive voices acknowledging that Darwin’s theory did not contradict the Christian faith.’--- H. Newman, quoted in Chieflifejournal.

Henry Newman also brings up the question of ‘the supposed improbability of their being planets with rational inhabitants,’ hinting he would also have no problem if there were such aliens. Here then, we find again the old Pythagorean heresies that Pope Urban VIII predicted would happen if the Galilean heresy was allowed as a truth of faith and reason. Prof. A. A. Martinez tells us:

‘[St] Thomas also denied the claim that there are multiple worlds. Like Hippolytus, he attributed this false claim to those who did not acknowledge the ordering wisdom of God. St Thomas declared: “Those who posit many worlds do not believe in any ordaining wisdom, but in chance, as Democritus, who said that this world and infinitely many others came from a concourse of atoms.”’--- Burned Alive.


Matthew 24:24: ‘For false Christs and false prophets will arise, and will show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.’

The U-turn of 1820 by Pope Pius VII set the scene for Modernism in the Church. From that day onward every Pope and clergyman had to accept the heresy of heliocentrism as it affected history and the proper understanding of Scripture. Pope Leo went on to give such 'corrections' a licence in his Providentissimus Deus and that was carried on by every churchman thereafter.

Notre Dame University’s Church Life Journal called Henry Newman ‘the patron saint of evolution.’ Then there was Archbishop Fulton Sheen.
   
‘Recently I was happy to read a similar assessment by Venerable Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen (1895-1979) written after the 1962 monitum. In an article on Teilhard entitled Personality: Earth and Heaven, Venerable Sheen wrote: “It is very likely that when all the trivial, verbal disputes about Teilhard's ‘unfortunate’ vocabulary will have died away or have taken a secondary place, Teilhard will appear like John of the Cross or Saint Teresa of Avila, as a spiritual genius of the twentieth century.”’--- In the Fullness of Time, Asian Trading Corporation, Bangalore, India, 1999, twentieth anniversary of Venerable Sheen’s death, pp. 71-72.

Good for you.  You know have a patron saint for your R&R that was also responsible for the modern ideas that led to Vatican II.

I await your refutation, instead of your tiresome blathering.

Henry Newman was not unlike Galileo, who also boasted of his superior intellect. When Newman stood for the Oriel Fellowship, he confided to his father that;
   
‘Few have ever attained the facility and comprehension which I arrived at from the regularity and constancy of my reading and the laborious and nerve-bracing and fancy-repressing study of mathematics, which has been my principal subject.’ (Vincent Ferrer Belhl: Pilgrim’s Journey. John Henry Newman, Paulist Press, 2002, p.45)

Are you sure that wasn’t a quote from Ladislaus?

Yes Ladislaus,   every churchman from 1820 went along with the 'scientific' modernism brought about by the concession to heliocentrism, defined and declared in 1616 and 1633 by popes Paul V and Urban VIII as formal HERESY. That said, every pope up to Pius XII tried to stop Modernism but they couldn't because they had to go along with their predecessor Pius VII who was conned by Fr Olivieri into permitting a heliocentric reading of Scripture. Even Pope St Pius x, was dragged into the greatest deceit in Church history;

Pope St Pius X - on the advice of Italian astronomer Cardinal Pietro Maffi - designated Fr G. Hagen S.J. (1847-1930) as director of the Specola Vaticana.  Such was Fr Hagan’s reputation on the occasion of his 80th birthday in 1927, that he was visited at the observatory by Pope Pius XI (1922-39) who presented him with a special gold medal. So, what service to astronomy was such that Fr Hagan deserved to be made director of the observatory and get a holy gold medal from reigning popes?

‘The Rev. William F. Rigge, S.J., professor of physics and astronomy at Creighton University, has a long article running through the April and May [1913] numbers of Popular Astronomy on “Experimental Proofs of the Earth’s Rotation.” It is an abridged and popular presentation of the book published by Father Hagen, S.J., director of the Vatican Observatory in 1911. It is divided into four parts. The first treats of bodies falling from a height, which on account of their being farther from the Earth’s axis of revolution when on the top of a tower, move eastward faster than the ground and must therefore fall east of the point directly below them. The second mentions various forms of pendulums, especially Foucault’s, whose plane of vibration, while really fixed, appears to shift on account of the Earth’s rotation. The third part treats of gyroscopes, and shows how they are used to prove that our Earth turns on an axis. The fourth part explains various other apparatus, including two machines of Father Hagen’s own invention. “It looks like an amende honorable to the Galileo imbroglio,” says Fr. Rigge in the Creighton Chronicle “that the Pope’s own astronomer should come openly before the world with such a learned work and should even produce two new experiments to prove the fact of the Earth’s rotation. Not that we imply that Galileo was condemned for the sole reason that he upheld this doctrine of the Earth’s motion — for which however he had absolutely no proof whatever — but that we have now one argument more, and one that fully offsets any fault that may have been committed before.”’--- Fr W. F. Rigge, S.J. (The Fortnightly Review: Mission Press of the Society of the Divine Illinois, 1913)

‘It looks like an amende honourable [English law. A penalty imposed upon a person by way of disgrace or infamy, as a punishment for any offence, or for the purpose of making reparation for any injury done to another, as the walking into church in a white sheet, with a rope about the neck, and begging the pardon of God, or the king, or any private individual, for some delinquency.] to the Galileo imbroglio,’ [An acutely painful or embarrassing misunderstanding]  adds Fr. Rigge S.J., describing the humiliation with which churchmen of his time viewed the Catholic Church supposedly getting its Biblical and philosophical meaning wrong in 1616 and in Galileo’s trial in 1633. Above we see the Jesuits of the Vatican Observatory, in Pope St Pius X’s and Pope Pius XI’s time, were now, in the name of the Church, trying to convince all how Galileo’s science and heretical Biblical hermeneutics were correct and Catholic. They did this by regurgitating all the so-called proofs for a rotating Earth, even when cosmologists were admitting relativity prevails so no proof for an orbiting Earth ever existed. This then is how the ‘intellectual’ Jesuits tried to stop all ‘accusations against the Church as an enemy of scientific progress,’ by defending the false science.


See then that the greatest error ever made in the Catholic Church was in 1820 when 'material' heresy entered the womb of the Church. I say material because it was not an intentional rejection of a dogma, it was based on ignorance and the wrong advice. The Devil fooled the whole world including popes of the Catholic Church, proving what Jesus said, that he was 'the Father of lies.' Not only did popes go along with the lie that their predecessors in 1616 and 1633 made a mistake when defining what Holy Scripture really means, what Trent said was the opinion of ALL the Fathers, inferring ALL the Fathers were also wrong, but they cannot admit to the truth now because the lie is less harmful to the credibility of the Catholic Church than the truth. So, it is history now, that since 1820 modernist Catholicism became more credible than supernatural Catholicism which in turn has lost millions of Catholics from the faith plunging our generation into the worst time ever to defend tradition.

Words spoken by the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster at the Solemn Requiem at the Oratory, South Kensington, 20th August 1890.

"We have lost our greatest witness for the Faith, and we are all poorer and lower by the loss."

https://www.newmanreader.org/biography/manning90.html

To Cardinal Manning and Pope St. Pius X, we can add Cardinal Merry del Val (Secretary of State under Pope St. Pius X) to the defenders of the orthodoxy of Cardinal Newman:

"Pascendi had in fact been commissioned by a native English-speaking cardinal; indeed, by a consultor to the Index, who actively quoted Newman’s writings and recommended them to others. Far from being a liberal fifth column within the Vatican, this was none other than Pius’ impeccably ultramontane Cardinal Secretary of State, Rafael Merry del Val...It was Merry del Val who commissioned [Fr.] Joseph Lemius, procurator of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate, to draft Pascendi; Merry del Val who took a lead role in enforcing its anti-modernist agenda; and – nota bene – Merry del Val who tirelessly championed Newman’s orthodoxy, using the semi-official L’Osservatore Romano to underline the ‘world of difference between what the Cardinal taught and the Modernism which is condemned in the Encyclical."

https://web.archive.org/web/20160127105443/http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2015/10/09/on-the-feast-of-blessed-john-henry-newman-raise-a-glass-to-pius-x/

I think I place more stock in the endorsement and defenses of St. Pius X, Cardinal Manning, and Cardinal del Val, than in the condemnations of Ladislaus and Cassini.

Cardinal Newman was a total pre-Modernist.  The great Orestes Brownson, a convert, and one of the greatest writers in American history, totally destroyed Newman's liberalism.