Catholic Thought discussion
Apologia Pro Vita Sua
>
Chapter 2
date
newest »
newest »
Manny, this is so very helpful. Thank you.
Mod
So, if you’re having trouble, just ask, either publically or in a private mail. I would prefer publically since that generates conversation. Also, just read along and just follow the conversation. Even if you don’t get it completely, I think you will get something out of this read. I believe I am getting it, though slowly, and so I think our schedule will be blown. But this is a famous work, and we will be satisfied to have read it. Plus, his conversion is coming up in the next couple of chapters, and that will be exciting. If all you get out of chapter 2 is the summary I posted above, I think that’s all you need to know to move on. So move on to chapter 3. It’s ok.
Mod
To mention Mr. Hugh Rose's name is to kindle in the minds of those who knew him a host of pleasant and affectionate remembrances. He was the man above all others fitted by his cast of mind and literary powers to make a stand, if a stand could be made, against the calamity of the times. He was gifted with a high and large mind, and a true sensibility of what was great and beautiful; he wrote with warmth and energy; and he had a cool head and cautious judgment. He spent his strength and shortened his life, Pro Ecclesia Dei, as he understood that sovereign idea. Some years earlier he had been the first to give warning, I think from the University Pulpit at Cambridge, of the perils to England which lay in the biblical and theological speculations of Germany. The Reform agitation followed, and the Whig Government came into power; and he anticipated in their distribution of Church patronage the authoritative introduction of liberal opinions into the country. He feared that by the Whig party a door would be opened in England to the most grievous of heresies, which never could be closed again. In order under such grave circumstances to unite Churchmen together, and to make a front against the coming danger, he had in 1832 commenced the British Magazine, and in the same year he came to Oxford in the summer term, in order to beat up for writers for his publication; on that occasion I became known to him through Mr. Palmer. His reputation and position came in aid of his obvious fitness, in point of character and intellect, to become the centre of an ecclesiastical movement, if such a movement were to depend on the action of a party. His delicate health, his premature death, would have frustrated the expectation, even though the new school of opinion had been more exactly thrown into the shape of a party, than in fact was the case. But he zealously backed up the first efforts of those who were principals in it; and, when he went abroad to die, in 1838, he allowed me the solace of expressing my feelings of attachment and gratitude to him by addressing him, in the dedication of a volume of my Sermons, as the man, "who, when hearts were failing, bade us stir up the gift that was in us, and betake ourselves to our true Mother."
But there were other reasons, besides Mr. Rose's state of health, which hindered those who so much admired him from availing themselves of his close co-operation in the coming fight. United as both he and they were in the general scope of the Movement, they were in discordance with each other from the first in their estimate of the means to be adopted for attaining it. Mr. Rose had a position in the Church, a name, and serious responsibilities; he had direct ecclesiastical superiors; he had intimate relations with his own University, and a large clerical connexion through the country. Froude and I were nobodies; with no characters to lose, and no antecedents to fetter us. Rose could not go a-head across country, as Froude had no scruples in doing. Froude was a bold rider, as on horseback, so also in his speculations. After a long conversation with him on the logical bearing of his principles, Mr. Rose said of him with quiet humour, that "he did not seem to be afraid of inferences." It was simply the truth; Froude had that strong hold of first principles, and that keen perception of their value, that he was comparatively indifferent to the revolutionary action which would attend on their application to a given state of things; whereas in the thoughts of Rose, as a practical man, existing facts had the precedence of every other idea, and the chief test of the soundness of a line of policy lay in the consideration whether it would work. This was one of the first questions, which, as it seemed to me, on every occasion occurred to his mind. With Froude, Erastianism,—that is, the union (so he viewed it) of Church and State,—was the parent, or if not the parent, the serviceable and sufficient tool, of liberalism. Till that union was snapped, Christian doctrine never could be safe; and, while he well knew how high and unselfish was the temper of Mr. Rose, yet he used to apply to him an epithet, reproachful in his own mouth;—Rose was a "conservative." By bad luck, I brought out this word to Mr. Rose in a letter of my own, which I wrote to him in criticism of something he had inserted in his Magazine: I got a vehement rebuke for my pains, for though Rose pursued a conservative line, he had as high a disdain, as Froude could have, of a worldly ambition, and an extreme sensitiveness of such an imputation.
But there was another reason still, and a more elementary one, which severed Mr. Rose from the Oxford Movement. Living movements do not come of committees, nor are great ideas worked out through the post, even though it had been the penny post. This principle deeply penetrated both Froude and myself from the first, and recommended to us the course which things soon took spontaneously, and without set purpose of our own. Universities are the natural centres of intellectual movements. How could men act together, whatever was their zeal, unless they were united in a sort of individuality? Now, first, we had no unity of place. Mr. Rose was in Suffolk, Mr. Perceval in Surrey, Mr. Keble in Gloucestershire; Hurrell Froude had to go for his health to Barbadoes. Mr. Palmer was indeed in Oxford; this was an important advantage, and told well in the first months of the Movement;—but another condition, besides that of place, was required.
Try to read each sentence to yourself and let each sentence settle before you go to the next. Newman has such a wonderful rhythm. Notice how he uses couplets of adjectives and nouns: “pleasant and affectionate remembrances,” “cast of mind and literary powers,” “gifted with a high and large mind,” “of what was great and beautiful; he wrote with warmth and energy; and he had a cool head and cautious judgment.” It all sort of culminates with this powerful sentence: “He spent his strength and shortened his life…” Some writers love to write in twos, others in threes; Newman definitely in twos, which provides a very distinct rhythm.
Here’s another stylistic observation: he likes add little tags phrases (free modifying phrases) at the end of main clauses in order to balance the sentence. Like this: “His reputation and position came in aid of his obvious fitness, in point of character and intellect, to become the centre of an ecclesiastical movement, if such a movement were to depend on the action of a party.” “in point of character and intellect” is a modifying phrase of the main clause, and then he adds a tag “if such a movement were to depend on the action of a party” after subordinate clause, “to become the centre of an ecclesiastical movement.” One half of the sentence balances the other—again a sort of duple rhythm—and the repetition of the word “movement” from the subordinate clause echoes in the subsequent tag phrase, which seems to give an emphasis on that final beat of the rhythm.
Finally Newman is skillful in mixing long and short sentences. After a number of longish sentences, notice how the short staccato clauses of this section just bounces on the tongue: “Mr. Rose had a position in the Church, a name, and serious responsibilities; he had direct ecclesiastical superiors; he had intimate relations with his own University, and a large clerical connexion through the country. Froude and I were nobodies; with no characters to lose, and no antecedents to fetter us.” And none of these stylistic flourishes calls attention to itself. It probably came very natural to him, not giving it much thought. It’s just there for those that hear it and appreciate it.
The former English teacher in me loves this. We don't pay enough attention to syntax, phrasing, parallelism, etc. --those rhetorical devices that make for the most effective and persuasive prose. Just being aware of them makes writing students better writers, I think.
I apologize that I've been a bit MIA, but I've had a busy couple of weeks. I find fascinating, from chapter one but fleshed out in chapter two, that the "religious liberalism" which Cardinal Newman was reacting against is pretty much the same as that we have today, just with different emphases. By and large, the critiques of the Oxford Movement seem to be that a Christianity which conforms itself to the fashions of the day eventually ceases to be Christianity. In broad strokes, we can see this pattern of argument repeated in today's debates over a slew of moral issues, and we can look back and see it as a forerunner to the Modernism of the early twentieth century. It certainly gives credence to the observation in Ecclesiastes that, "there is nothing new under the sun."
Mod
The same thought occurred to me too Joseph. However, I had to scale back. The tension between those that seek progressive advancement and those that seek to conserve is always there going back to the nominalism of the Middle Ages, so it's not unusual for Newman and those of his day to characterize a dichotomy between a "liberal" faction and a "conservative" one. The question is always what is being conserved and what is being advanced. Here it seems that the Evangelical, Low Church is being called the liberal while the Anglican High Church is the conservative. Intuitively it could have been just the opposite for all I know. Why is the Evangelical the liberal side? A lot depends on the development of Anglican theology.
Here's what I know. When Henry VIII overturned the Catholic faith, what he established was not too much different. But in short order with Queen Elizabeth, the Puritan (forefathers to the Evangelicals) spirit started to rise sharply, and with her successor James I it really began to dominate, so much so that when his heir was going to be a Catholic king, the country went into Civil War, and the Puritans won that war. England became very much low church Puritan. When the monarchy was re-instituted, it was more a return to Henry VIII's Catholic-lite theology at the aristocratic level, but not so much at the local level. Then there was another civil war, more going back and forth until the Bloodless Revolution where England pulled a king and queen from continental Europe who were very Protestant. Now there was another hundred years or so until Newman's time, where I don't exactly know which theology was on top and which wasn't.
So now why would Anglo-Catholic be more conservative? As I reflected on it, I would have guessed the Low Church Evangelical was the conservative and those pushing closer toward Catholicism were the liberal. But I guess I am wrong. I just don’t have the nuanced understanding of the English religious scene of the 18th century that led to Newman.
Mod
1. First was the principle of dogma: my battle was with liberalism; by liberalism I mean the anti-dogmatic principle and its developments. This was the first point on which I was certain. Here I make a remark: persistence in a given belief is no sufficient test of its truth; but departure from it is at least a slur upon the man who has felt so certain about it. In proportion, then, as I had in 1832 a strong persuasion of the truth of opinions which I have since given up, so far a sort of guilt attaches to me, not only for that vain confidence, but for all the various proceedings which were the consequence of it. But under this first head I have the satisfaction of feeling that I have nothing to retract, and nothing to repent of. The main principle of the movement is as dear to me now, as it ever was. I have changed in many things: in this I have not.
Point #2
2. Secondly, I was confident in the truth of a certain definite religious teaching, based upon this foundation of dogma; viz. that there was a visible Church, with sacraments and rites which are the channels of invisible grace. I thought that this was the doctrine of Scripture, of the early Church, and of the Anglican Church. Here again, I have not changed in opinion; I am as certain now on this point as I was in 1833, and have never ceased to be certain. In 1834 and the following years I put this ecclesiastical doctrine on a broader basis, after reading Laud, Bramhall, and Stillingfleet and other Anglican divines on the one hand, and after prosecuting the study of the Fathers on the other; but the doctrine of 1833 was strengthened in me, not changed.
Point #3:
3. But now, as to the third point on which I stood in 1833, and which I have utterly renounced and trampled upon since,—my then view of the Church of Rome;—I will speak about it as exactly as I can. When I was young, as I have said already, and after I was grown up, I thought the Pope to be Antichrist. At Christmas 1824-5 I preached a Sermon to that effect. But in 1827 I accepted eagerly the stanza in the Christian Year, which many people thought too charitable. "Speak gently of thy sister's fall." From the time that I knew Froude I got less and less bitter on the subject. I spoke (successively, but I cannot tell in what order or at what dates) of the Roman Church as being bound up with "the cause of Antichrist," as being one of the "many antichrists" foretold by St. John, as being influenced by "the spirit of Antichrist," and as having something "very Antichristian" or "unchristian" about her. From my boyhood and in 1824 I considered, after Protestant authorities, that St. Gregory I. about A.D. 600 was the first Pope that was Antichrist, though, in spite of this, he was also a great and holy man; but in 1832-3 I thought the Church of Rome was bound up with the cause of Antichrist by the Council of Trent.
I think that captures the three points, but if you want the full development of each point you will have to turn to the text. Actually about ten pages later, Newman, in identifying his position as the Via Media, summarizes them himself:
Lest I should be misunderstood, let me observe that this hesitation about the validity of the theory of the Via Media implied no doubt of the three fundamental points on which it was based, as I have described them above, dogma, the sacramental system, and anti-Romanism.
So I think one can look at the first two points as Catholic-lite, but the third as strongly anti-Catholic.
Mod
“What we need at present for our Church's well-being, is not invention, nor originality, nor sagacity, nor even learning in our divines, at least in the first place, though all gifts of God are in a measure needed, and never can be unseasonable when used religiously, but we need peculiarly a sound judgment, patient thought, discrimination, a comprehensive mind, an abstinence from all private fancies and caprices and personal tastes,—in a word, Divine Wisdom."
In the first main clause he provides a list of negatives (“not, nor, etc.), of what the Church doesn’t need. Then he pauses with a subordinate clause qualifying those negatives before he gives a second main clause providing a list of what it does need, including an “abstinence” which is another form of negation. Then he tops it off with a summation, “Divine Wisdom.” That is just so beautiful.
I’m not certain if this contributes to the discussion but because it’s from Bishop Robert Barron’s Word On Fire, I’d like to quote “What Is Liberalism”? from ‘’The Pivotal Players’’:‘’When John Henry Newman battled theological ‘liberalism’ in his writings, he wasn’t engaging what we today mean by that word, in its political sense. Here’s how he defined it: ‘Liberalism is the doctrine that there is no positive truth in religion and that demonstration or formal logic is the only basis for any certitude. It teaches that all are to be tolerated and that revealed religion is not a truth, but a sentiment and a taste.’’
Even though I haven’t started rereading yet, I do want to comment that the disregard of dogma is something I see in non-denominational churches today. One recent example is a sermon on Matthew 9–old wine in new wine skins—in a church in Parker, CO. The pastor used this verse to prove Biblically the principle of relevance. How remaining relevant and changing worship music can reach more people for Christ. But he never defined what is non-negotiable and what is dogma. This is a column built on quicksand.
Mod
Those are both helpful comments. What Peej is saying is along the lines of my assumption of Low Church representing the Liberal side but frankly it doesn't seem to add up altogether. The problem is that Newman was not clear as to what Liberalism refers to. I think he assumed it from the context of his time. In the 1865 version, there is a supplemental chapter called "Liberalism" where he states he was asked to define it. Apparently others reading it made the same observation, and so he had to add it. I have not read the chapter. Here is a link to the online 1865 publication.
https://www.newmanreader.org/works/ap...
The chapter on Liberalism is the first of the supplemental material, under Note A. It looks like it's only 14 pages. I'll try to read it tonight, but if anyone else wishes to, please feel free to tell us what it says.
Mod
When, in the beginning of the present century, not very long before my own time, after many years of moral and intellectual declension, the University of Oxford woke up to a sense of its duties, and began to reform itself, the first instruments of this change, to whose zeal and courage we all owe so much, were naturally thrown together for mutual support, against the numerous obstacles which lay in their path, and soon stood out in relief from the body of residents, who, though many of them men of talent themselves, cared little for the object which the others had at heart. These Reformers, as they may be called, were for some years members of scarcely more than three or four Colleges; and their own Colleges, as being under their direct influence, of course had the benefit of those stricter views of discipline and teaching, which they themselves were urging on the University... Thus was formed an intellectual circle or class in the University,—men, who felt they had a career before them, as soon as the pupils, whom they were forming, came into public life; men, whom non-residents, whether country parsons or preachers of the Low Church, on coming up from time to time to the old place, would look at, partly with admiration, partly with suspicion, as being an honour indeed to Oxford, but withal exposed to the temptation of ambitious views, and to the spiritual evils signified in what is called the "pride of reason."
So it sounds like the dispute was between factions at Oxford, between the High Church Anglican faction, of which Newman was a part, and a Low Church Evangelical faction, but that Evangelical faction was not necessarily in line with the Low Church pastoring that was in the English folk. If I got that correct, and I’m not 100% sure I do, then I can see the confusion. The Liberals were Low Church, but intellectual Low Church.
Newman provides an actual definition of Liberalism:
Now by Liberalism I mean false liberty of thought, or the exercise of thought upon matters, in which, from the constitution of the human mind, thought cannot be brought to any successful issue, and therefore is out of place. Among such matters are first principles of whatever kind; and of these the most sacred and momentous are especially to be reckoned the truths of Revelation. Liberalism then is the mistake of subjecting to human judgment those revealed doctrines which are in their nature beyond and independent of it, and of claiming to determine on intrinsic grounds the truth and value of propositions which rest for their reception simply on the external authority of the Divine Word.
Now that we see the definition, and understand the factional conflict, I do think Joseph is right when he says, “In broad strokes, we can see this pattern of argument repeated in today's debates over a slew of moral issues, and we can look back and see it as a forerunner to the Modernism of the early twentieth century.” I think the “forerunner to the Modernism” goes back even further than this, but he is right when he says it is repeated in much the same pattern in today’s Church debates.
Toward the end of the chapter he provides a bullet list of 18 positions of the Liberals. Newman provides some exposition on each of the positions, which makes it too long to quote completely, so I’ll just list the eighteen without his expounding on them.
1. No religious tenet is important, unless reason shows it to be so.
2. No one can believe what he does not understand.
3. No theological doctrine is any thing more than an opinion which happens to be held by bodies of men.
4. It is dishonest in a man to make an act of faith in what he has not had brought home to him by actual proof.
5. It is immoral in a man to believe more than he can spontaneously receive as being congenial to his moral and mental nature.
6. No revealed doctrines or precepts may reasonably stand in the way of scientific conclusions.
7. Christianity is necessarily modified by the growth of civilization, and the exigencies of times.
8. There is a system of religion more simply true than Christianity as it has ever been received.
9. There is a right of Private Judgment: that is, there is no existing authority on earth competent to interfere with the liberty of individuals in reasoning and judging for themselves about the Bible and its contents, as they severally please.
10. There are rights of conscience such, that every one may lawfully advance a claim to profess and teach what is false and wrong in matters, religious, social, and moral, provided that to his private conscience it seems absolutely true and right.
11. There is no such thing as a national or state conscience.
12. The civil power has no positive duty, in a normal state of things, to maintain religious truth.
13. Utility and expedience are the measure of political duty.
14. The Civil Power may dispose of Church property without sacrilege.
15. The Civil Power has the right of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and administration.
16. It is lawful to rise in arms against legitimate princes.
17. The people are the legitimate source of power.
18. Virtue is the child of knowledge, and vice of ignorance.
As you can see, most of them are very Liberal even by today’s standards. It is interesting that Newman states he never supported any of them “except No. 12, and perhaps No. 11, and partly No. 1.” In today’s the United States, I think number 17 would qualify as somthing to support, but otherwise I’m pretty much on board with Newman’s assessment.
I hope that clarifies now what Newman means by Liberalism.
Great analysis. Liberalism by Newman's definition has not changed much, but in our day is being edged out by outright Marxism, I think. Newman could not have imagined the future we're living, with internet, social media, and a media that supports what the government tells them to support, and how fewer people seem to be looking very deeply into what they're being told.
“Liberalism then is the mistake of subjecting to human judgment those revealed doctrines which are in their nature beyond and independent of it, and of claiming to determine on intrinsic grounds the truth and value of propositions which rest for their reception simply on the external authority of the Divine Word.“This is important. I agree that many don’t reflect on first principles in the US today, or they simply accept certain traditions without questioning them. It’s easier, and we all do it. It’s comfortable.
Especially with Evangelicals and Protestants, they claim to follow sola scriptura, even though they subscribe to their own alternative traditions unconsciously. Fascinating that Newman identified this in the mid-19th century. There is nothing new under the sun.
Mod
Lest I should be misunderstood, let me observe that this hesitation about the validity of the theory of the Via Media implied no doubt of the three fundamental points on which it was based, as I have described them above, dogma, the sacramental system, and anti-Romanism.
Of the three fundamental points on which he defines the Via Media, which is supposed to define High Church Anglicanism, each is in counter-distinction to three opposing religions. That the Via Media rests on defined dogma is in counter-distinction to Liberal Low Church Evangelicalism; that the Via Media contains a sacramental system is in counter-distinction to traditional Low Church Evangelicalism; and that the Via Media is anti-Romanism stands in opposition to the Roman Catholic Church.
Unless anyone else wants to pursue discussion of chapter 2, I think we have captured the gist of it. If we had more time, we could look more closely at Tract 90, but we are already behind, and I think that summation just now suffices for our book club purposes.
Mod
Manny, I agree. “Roman Catholic” is a pejorative in most cases, as Protestants use the phrase to argue that Catholicism was hijacked by pagan cultures after the reign of Constantinople. It really grinds my gears when Catholic parishes use “Roman Catholic Church” on their signs, as if our church is Roman in nature, when it is actually universal.I assume it is to distinguish from Ukrainian Catholic or other types of local Catholic Churches, but it still isn’t proper.
As for this chapter, one aspect I noted was Newman’s love for his bishop, which later became love for the Pope. The love arises from the role of bishop or pope as divinely ordained, and it really touches on the relational aspect that Catholics should have with their shepherds as representatives of Jesus Christ, the king of heaven and earth. Catholicism is a religion of the heart and the head.
I don't hear "Roman" attached to Catholic much anymore. However, our parish used to have on its sign "St. Ann Catholic Parish," but now it just has "St. Ann Parish," and a lot of us didn't like that. I think they did it because we do have the biggest Church in Coppell (and one of the largest parishes in the country, surprisingly), and we attract many non-Catholics, especially when we do our annual carnival--the whole city turns out.
Mod
"
Nicely said Peej.
Manny wrote: "How are you guys doing on this read? I was going back and forth in private mail with one of our members who is “struggling” with this read. I pointed out this is a tough read. There are several dif..."Hi Manny.
Yes, that would be me! <3
I have rededicated myself and have a new plan of attack. I am going for read your intro and the commentary to date and then read the chapter to help orient me. I may even try to read the chapters twice - first a quick read to get the major themes and then a slow one for internalization.
There is so much in this book that I don't see me getting everything he is offering it out this read, though I am sure I will find my gold.
Mod
Manny wrote: "John Henry Newman has the reputation of being one of the great prose stylist of the English language. So far in the first two chapters we probably have only seen that brilliance shine a few times, ..."Thank you Manny for calling this out. I have noticed that I cannot rush through his writing, even as I am desperate to catch up. I do need to take in each clause an 'rest' to take it in to get the full benefit of it. You have helped me understand why.
Manny wrote: "Notable quote from this chapter of another beautifully written sentence: “What we need at present for our Church's well-being, is not invention, nor originality, nor sagacity, nor even learning i..."
That was my take as well France. Copying a sentence from Manny's excerpt above supports this: "1. First was the principle of dogma: my battle was with liberalism; by liberalism I mean the anti-dogmatic principle and its developments"
I interpret his definition of liberalism to be our 'relativism' of today.
Hi All.Trying to catch up here.
I can say that I appreciated this chapter more than that of the first. I can see where he is coming from in putting forth his argument. I can also detect a little humor.
He comes across very dependent on logic and analysis to validate his religious beliefs. Though I do appreciate the supporting facts, my beliefs are grounded in feelings and a silent calling. Perhaps he will touch on that in later chapters.
Mod
I love your phrase “a silent calling,” Christine.
Mod
I must say I found much of this really dry. After a while I opted to listen to the audio version (free on Librivox) while I read. That helped moving things along when otherwise I would have been bogged down.
I recently listened to a podcast on the English composer Thomas Tallis (1505 -1585). He was right in the middle of the back and forth between new Anglican liturgy and old Catholic liturgy, the new mostly sung in English, and the old sung in Latin. They also talked about the Book of Common Prayer. What is interesting to note here, is that much of this "new" material, whether liturgy or prayers, were in fact simply translations from Latin into English. In other words, they kept the old material, now in English translation, and slapped an Anglican label on it.
Newman in many ways must have pointed out the obvious, especially to learned men.
Square Notes podcast: https://sacredmusicpodcast.com/se03-e...
Kerstin, I love that phrase--"gnaw myself through this chapter." I am right with you on that one. Trying to highlight the important parts in between gnashings.
And thank you for that link. Will be listening.
I felt the same way when I first read Newman. It took me two attempts to read “Development of Christian Doctrine”, but I’m glad I did. After reading one of his pieces, it enables efficient reading of others. As for “Apologia”, when I first attempted to read it by myself, I quit. Reading it with this group is helping me!
Summary
Chapter 2 provides the bulk of Newman’s output as a Protestant theologian. He makes it clear that he is still very much a committed Protestant but one of the key features of this period is Newman joining and supporting the Oxford Movement, a High Church theology that eventually evolved into Anglo-Catholicism and fought against the “Liberalism” of its day—that is the Evangelical Protestants and Low Church theology. Newman provides a description of two of the key members of his movement, Mr. Hugh Rose, John Keble, and Dr. Edward Pusey. What governs the development of this chapter are the series of Newman’s publications over these years. The most important of these publications were a series of tracts published by Newman, Pusey, and Keble that came to be known as the Tracts for the Times. The objective of the tracts was to present Anglicanism as the Via Media, that is, the middle way between Catholicism and Mainline Protestantism. The theology of the Oxford Movement was to recover the rich history of English Christianity from the Middle Ages but yet maintain a distinction from “Popish” Rome. One of Newman’s tracts, the last tract to be written, Tract 90, goes on to show that the 39 Articles central to the practice and faith of the Church of England are “compatible” with the Council of Trent, the Catholic Council in response to Protestantism, the central theological statement of the Counter-Reformation. Tract 90 caused a firestorm within the English Church from all sides that the Tracts had to be stopped and Newman forced to resign from the Oxford Movement.
Let me provide some Wikipedia links that might help you sort out this chapter.
Oxford Movement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_...
Dr. Edward Pusey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_...
John Keble: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Keble
Tracts for the Times: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracts_...
Tract 90: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tract_90
Via Media: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Via_media