This is long past due. Newman’s influence both on the 19th-century renaissance of Catholicism in England and on 20th-century Catholic theology was immense. His beatification/canonization has only been delayed by a number of political considerations: Newman was not liked by a couple of contemporary Archbishops of Westminster, he was not a native-born Roman Catholic, he did not go ultra-montane after his conversion (like Father Faber, for example), and he was not particularly supportive of the declaration of papal infallibility.

Would that modern Anglicans (and especially the hierarchy of TEC) had more respect for the good Cardinal.  We should, at least, pay as much attention to what he said to Anglicans as the Roman Church pays to what he said to Anglicans.

And I’m sure there is no particular significance to its coming at the present time.

Ven. John Henry was a major force in my conversion from Anglicanism to Catholicism.  Once I read the Apologia, I could see no other way forward.

Ven. John Henry, pray for us!

On the recommendation of Father Handy, I have purchased “Parochial and Plain Sermons” by the good Cardinal. I plain to xerox some of these and they will be my readings in the wilds of the Philippines on a medical mission in 2 weeks.

At the risk of offending the Newman admirers, I suggest that Anglicans read the history of the Oxford Movement by Richard Church.  Church cast the veto that prevented complete humiliation of Newman during his Oxford crisis.  Devoted to Newman and the other Oxford Fathers, Richard Church remained an Anglican.  He served as Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral, London during the late decades of the nineteenth century.  His pragmatic assesment of Anglicanism along with his convictions about its value make a useful antidote to Roman Fever.  I realize that not everyone wants to be cured, and I can respect that.  I am not denegrating Newman; I’m just saying that there is another side to the story.  Michael Ramsey wrote a very brief essay about Richard Church, published in Durham Essays, I think.  There are also a couple of biographies available.  Many sermons from country parish, cathedral, and university.  Anglican loyalists will be uplifted by knowing about Richard Church; ex-Anglicans shouldn’t bother.

Newman got in trouble in his Anglican days by trying to re-interpret the meaning of the words of the 39 Articles to say the Articles were consistent with R.C. doctrine. In a way it was a looseness in attaching meaning to plain language that is similar to that which has been ascribed to revisionism today. He is also worth studying, though, for his assertions that there are elements of Anglicanism that re-create early Church heresies…not that I necessarily agree. But I am pleased a man of his greatness is being elevated to Sainthood by the Pope.

First they beat-ify a guy then they canonize him! Is there no end to the suffering?

No. 7 - Not consistent with RC doctrine, but with Catholic doctrine as understood at the time of the writing of the Articles.

There is something about beatification that is deeply repellent to me.
Am I alone in this? It is hard to believe that Christ would look at this process with approval.  Newman presumably knows that which the Lord has in store for him. Why isn’t that sufficient? LM

#10,  It’s probably because you don’t believe the Church has the authority to state with absolute Gospel certainty that a particular person is in heaven, and therefore can, without a shadow of a doubt, hear our prayers and intercede for us.

Just a guess

Blessed Newman pray for us!

#10 Larry-  Of course God already knows who has served Him well.  But we need to be told, to be given examples.  We need heroes to emulate.

I agree #13 with you. But #11: Here the problem with sainthood comes to a point. What makes you think - why should it be the case - that a dead saint - or Mary for that matter - can intervene for you before God? This implies that God is unable to make up his mind, that a saint can stand before him like an attorney and make a case for you which God will or will not uphold on the basis of the attorney’s case.  I submit that this is absurd and should be repudiated by any church. There can be no intercessors, either for the living or the dead, or God’s nature is diminished.

  And it is both certainly and obviously true that a church cannot know - can never know -  whom God has judged and saved. For the RC to say that Newman is in heaven is to say that we know precisely what God knows: the inward man, perfectly. And I say, “No, this cannot be. Human knowledge is fallible even at its most certain.”
  Larry

#14: Well, I don’t want to get off topic and start a discussion on the intercession of Saints, but we believe that the “dead” who are in heaven are actually “alive in Christ” and can hear us.  The prayers of a righteous man being more effacacious, we ask for their intercession as we would ask anyone here on earth for their prayers.

As for the authority to infallibly declare that someone who led a saintly life is in heaven, that came with the keys and the authority to bind and loose.  Again, I don’t want to get too off topic, but that’s what Catholics believe.

Newman’s written Anglican sermons are generally considered superior to those he published as a Roman Catholic. Selections of both appear in-Paulist Press’ “Classics of Western Spirituality” series.

#2, on what basis, on what evidence do you assert that the hierarchy of TEC has little respect for Cardinal Newman?

#15 Chris,  You are right, and not just Roman Catholics but also the Orthodox pray to Saints, and have from the earliest times. 
It’s what the “Communion of Saints” mentioned in the Apostles’ Creed refers to.  The notion that we should not ask the Saints for their prayers is a Protestant innovation.

Wow, Larry Morse (#14), are you actually attempting to argue that intercessory prayer is a diminishment of God’s will?  If Christ is alive, then those who have died in Christ are also alive.  If they are alive, then we can ask them to pray for us.  You ceratinly don’t have to ask *anyone* to pray for you, Larry Morse, either living or departed ... but to argue that “There can be no intercessors, either for the living or the dead, or God’s nature is diminished”?  Wow.