Ian Ker sees himself, entirely justifiably and deservedly, as not only ‘a world expert’ but ‘the world expert’ on Newman.Footnote 1 His 2014 Newman on Vatican II ‘is a short book, but it takes the reader through a considerable part of the Newman corpus and of his fundamental ideas… short, passionate and addressing important questions of the moment’.Footnote 2 Ker proposes and defends a thesis that Newman ‘was both a radical and conservative, a reformer but also a traditionalist’.Footnote 3 He concludes that there ‘can be no question but that Newman would have strongly supported the reformist party at Vatican II… would undoubtably have aligned himself with the moderates… and all those who wished to interpret the Council in accordance with the hermeneutic of reform in continuity’.Footnote 4 Furthermore, Ker argues that ‘Newman's writings on those subjects that occupied the Council offer a balanced, corrective commentary on the conciliar documents’.Footnote 5 The book is also a Newmanian apologia of the ‘hermeneutic of reform in continuity’ as promoted by Benedict XVI (the so called ‘Roman School’ of conciliar hermeneutics). Ker himself places his work in this context. Quoting Benedict XVI's speech to the Roman Curia, the text describes Newman as making ‘exactly the same point’ as the then-Pope in his book An Essay on the Development of Doctrine.Footnote 6
One of the areas Newman on Vatican II examines is the liturgical reforms of Vatican II. The text addresses this subject in two pages in the chapter Some Unintended Consequences of Vatican II arguing that it
would seem that Newman could have nothing to say about Sacrosanctum Concilium since this is the one document of the Council that he can scarcely be said to have anticipated in any way, as he never wrote about the liturgy and certainly was no forerunner of the liturgical movement of the twentieth century. However, there were and are unintended consequences of the promulgation of the Constitution [on the liturgy] on which he would certainly wish to comment.Footnote 7
I argue that: (1) an important subject is conspicuously treated too briefly, (2) Newman did have both a direct and indirect influence on the Liturgical Movement, (3) Newman wrote about the liturgy and liturgical reform, (4) Newman would have criticisms of the concepts of development and liturgical reform found in Sacrosanctum Concilium, (5) Newman would not dismiss the post-Conciliar reforms as ‘unintended consequences’ and ‘illegitimate developments’Footnote 8 but would have seen them as a consequence of the Council, and (6) speculatively (and arguably anachronistically), Newman would have theological and pastoral concerns regarding the Council's liturgical reforms and the Novus Ordo, but would have obtained an indult to continue using the traditional liturgical forms rather than entering into schism as some did after Vatican II.Footnote 9
It should be noted that this paper is not a criticism of Sacrosanctum Concilium, the post-Conciliar liturgical reforms, or the Novus Ordo. It is a critical engagement with certain narratives in Newman scholarship, and a tentative non-definitive alternative opinion on the authentic voice of Newman regarding the liturgical reform of Vatican II.Footnote 10 The purpose of this paper is not to offer an exhaustive study of Newman's thought on the liturgy or a comprehensive critique of the liturgical reform. I simply wish to open a debate on whether the argument presented in Newman on Vatican II is accurate and definitive.
1
Newman on Vatican II discusses how Newman would have responded to the Council's reform of the liturgy in just over two pages of text. In comparison, the index lists fifteen pages which discuss the ‘ecclesial movements and communities’ which came into being after the Council. While not dismissing the importance of the new ecclesial movements in the life of the Church, a two-page treatment does not reflect the significance of the of the subject of the liturgy and the Conciliar reforms. As MacCulloch states in A History of Christianity, after the Council, apart
from the furore on contraception, nothing in the life of the Church was so universally disruptive as the changes made to public worship…Although the hurt extended a good way beyond theological conservatives, the defiant and semi-clandestine celebration of the old Mass and its music became a catalyst for a slow gathering of fury among traditionalist Catholics, which in some places led to schism.Footnote 11
MacCulloch is not a Catholic yet perceives the significance of the liturgical changes. Newman on Vatican II acknowledges this importance, saying that the document on the liturgy ‘was obviously also the document that had most effect on the life of the Church and the lives of Catholics’.Footnote 12 If the purpose of Newman on Vatican II is to show a ‘corrective commentary’, then an issue which has caused great controversy and even schism would be a natural area to explore; yet the text has limited engagement with the subject.
The text may argue that Newman did not speak about the liturgy (an assertion this paper disputes), but this does not excuse its lack of engagement with that subject. Elsewhere in Newman on Vatican II, Newman's Seven Notes ‘to discriminate healthy developments of an idea from its state of corruption and decay…’ are referenced to discern the authenticity of Dignitatis Humanae.Footnote 13 The author has no problem, therefore, using Newman's thought to analyse other Conciliar documents and controversies which Newman himself did not specifically use the Notes to address.
There is a sense of a ‘sleight of hand’ in Newman on Vatican II, passing over the subject of the liturgy very briefly and not drawing attention to the often divisive liturgical debate. In defence of its brevity on the subject, the text states that ‘Newman could have nothing to say about Sacrosanctum Concilium since this is the one document of the Council that he can scarcely be said to have anticipated in any way, as he never wrote about the liturgy and certainly was no forerunner of the liturgical movement of the twentieth century’.Footnote 14 As sections two to five of this paper will show, however, there is a strong argument that this is not the case.
2
In stating that Newman ‘certainly was no forerunner of the liturgical movement of the twentieth century…’ Newman on Vatican II is establishing something of a strawman argument.Footnote 15 The Liturgical Movement was contemporary to Newman – the ‘Father of the Liturgical Movement’, Prosper Guéranger, was only four years younger than Newman, was ordained in 1827, and re-established Solesmes (the home of the Liturgical Movement) as a Monastery in 1831–33. Newman would not become a Catholic until 1845. It would, therefore, be impossible for Newman to be a forerunner in the sense of ‘preparing the way’ for Guéranger and the Liturgical Movement.
Furthermore, Newman can be shown to have had indirect links to the Liturgical Movement and direct influence upon the Church's understanding of the principles of liturgical development. On the one hand, it could be argued that Guéranger's visit to Newman at the Oratory while the former was in Birmingham, in fact, demonstrates Newman's lack of influence on the Liturgical Movement.Footnote 16 At the meeting Newman demonstrated an ‘iciness’ towards his French guest. Although when in the Oratory Library surrounded by books a more animated exchange took place between the two men, very little of any substance was discussed.Footnote 17 On the other hand, despite its insubstantial nature, this meeting shows that Guéranger esteemed Newman. As the Abbot of a major French monastery, Guéranger, held Prelatic status in the Catholic Church. For him to visit Newman – an ordinary priest – was a sign of the high regard he held him. To argue that this episode shows that Newman had an influence on Guéranger would be to overstate the case and create my own strawman. But it does show that Newman on Vatican II is arguably too hasty in completely dismissing Newman's relationship to the early Liturgical Movement and its founder.
There is evidence of Newman having a more lateral, or indirect, influence. In his study The Organic Development of the Liturgy, Alcuin Reid discusses Newman's 1831 homily on Ceremonies of the Church. Reid states that while the homily is ‘Anglican High Church apologetic, it is also an accurate articulation of the Catholic principle of respect for Liturgical Tradition, displaying the Catholic tendencies…’ of Newman.Footnote 18 Reid also references Newman's 1845 Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine as having ‘consonance with the principle of the organic development of the Liturgy…’.Footnote 19 This homily was before the foundation of Solesmes and the start of Guéranger's Liturgical Movement. While there is no evidence that Guéranger ever read this homily or that it in any way influenced the movement, it is important to note that even at this early stage and while still an Anglican, Newman was espousing opinions which were comparable to Catholic principles of development and tradition.
Reid's argument is supported in that as early as 1847 Newman was being cited by Giacomo Mazio, a Jesuit and professor of Theology and Canon Law at the Collegio Romano. He used Newman's Essay to defend the development of the Roman liturgy under Papal authority in contrast to the development of the Anglican liturgy.Footnote 20 Shea summarises Mazio's use:
In the article, entitled ‘Liturgia Anglicana’, Mazio argued for the authenticity of the Roman liturgy and against the tendency of some Anglicans to measure the legitimacy of doctrine or practice on the basis of what history could reconstruct of the first centuries of Christianity. Mazio argued against the contention that Roman Catholic doctrine became corrupted after the fourth and fifth centuries by dint of the corruption of its governing principle of authority in the papacy. In doing so, Mazio advanced Newman in general and the Essay on Development in particular as champions of the Roman Catholic alternative.Footnote 21
This shows that Newman's work as an Anglican in doctrinal development was directly used by Catholic theologians to justify developments in the Roman Liturgy. This was not what Newman had specifically written the text for. Nevertheless, the ease with which Mazio applied Newman's principles to this area of theology shows that the principles of doctrinal development which Newman espoused were indirectly prognostic of the principles of the development of the liturgy.
The links between Newman and the twentieth century liturgical reformers are subtle and tangential, but they can be discerned if one looks carefully.Footnote 22 In the latter half of the twentieth century, Newman scholarship was becoming prominent in Germany in the same universities where figures such as Romano Guardini and Josef A. Jungmann were teaching and who would later have significant impact on the reform of the liturgy.Footnote 23 One of the principal architects of the liturgical reform, French Oratorian Louis Bouyer, wrote a detailed biography of Newman in 1952.Footnote 24
There is a strong argument that Newman on Vatican II was incorrect to say that Newman was ‘certainly’ not a forerunner of the Liturgical movement. This is a strawman argument because Newman lived contemporaneously with the beginnings of the Liturgical Movement which started before his reception into the Catholic Church. Despite this, I have shown that there is an argument that Newman was both a direct and indirect forerunner in a ‘fellow traveller’ or prognostic sense. While it cannot be argued that he was a progenitor or ‘father’ of the Liturgical Movement, there is a sense that he could be considered an ‘uncle’.
3
Ker discusses Newman's writings on the liturgy in several different sources. Other scholars have written, in some cases extensively, on Newman and the liturgy. I will argue, therefore, that Newman on Vatican II stating that he ‘never wrote about the Liturgy’ is simply not correct.
Ker specifically states that, as an Anglican, ‘Newman was hostile to any attempt to change the liturgy, especially the damnatory clauses in the Athanasian Creed…’.Footnote 25 The content of this quotation is not discussed in Newman on Vatican II, but the original letter from which this is taken provides an interesting commentary on Newman's caution on liturgical reform as an Anglican. Newman asks:
Do not you think that the advantages gained by any alteration are not balanced by the hazard? — I am sometimes tempted to think associations connected with the Liturgy and affection for it is the great hold of the Church in the minds of the multitude — They feel little her abstract claims on their reverence; great as they are; — perhaps they have some notion of the superiority of her orders — still 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? if indeed the cause were urgent, then every thing must give way to necessity — else, the very talk about alteration will move irreverence towards the Service in an age peculiarly inclined to self confidence and irreverent presumption? — And again, in the question of the Athanasian Creed, if certain parts offend certain minds, is there not on the other hand an extreme danger of countenancing the false liberality of the age, which would fain have it believed that differences of opinion are of slight consequence? And is it not our duty to give warning to our brethren of fatal errors in charity to them?Footnote 26
Newman expressed pastoral concern for offending the sensibilities of the faithful by altering their liturgy. A liturgy which had been with them from their youth and through the difficult times of their lives. Furthermore, Newman is expressing concern over whether altering the liturgy so as not to offend certain people's sensibilities would allow liberalism and error.
The author of Newman on Vatican II has written about Newman and the liturgy in other sources, but there appears to be a conspicuous avoidance of acknowledging the liturgy's significance, for example, in Ker's Biography of Newman – currently the leading Newman biographical text. This book contains a single indexed reference to the liturgy which argues that Newman supported a ‘Church's liturgy, which was always changing “according to the times”…’.Footnote 27 In the original source material, however, this understanding is not necessarily contextually correct. This is found in a section of the Biography detailing Newman's cordial disagreement with a friend over the Gothic architecture of A. W. Pugin. Newman – the Biography states – argued that Pugin
was ‘notoriously engaged in a revival’, for there was no ‘continuous’ Gothic tradition. But the Church's liturgy, which was always changing ‘according to the times’, required a ‘living architecture’, whereas Gothic was ‘now like an old dress, which fitted a man well twenty years back but must be altered to fit him now’.Footnote 28
Newman complemented Pugin as ‘a man of genius’, but lamented that
he has the great fault of a man of genius… He is intolerant, and if I may use a stronger word, a bigot. He sees nothing good in any school of Christian art except of that which he is himself so great an ornament. The Canons of Gothic architecture are to him points of faith, and everyone is a heretic who would venture to question him.Footnote 29
Newman's letter is a critique of the ideas and principles behind Pugin's neo-Gothic architectural style, not the Church's liturgy. Some broader context might be helpful to qualify Newman's hostility to Pugin's style. After his conversion to Catholicism, Newman joined the Oratorians, a Congregation of priests and brothers founded in Rome during the Counter-Reformation. Their Oratorian heritage tends to strongly favour Italianate architecture. This can be seen in the design of the Brompton (London) Oratory completed in 1884 during Newman's lifetime and the Birmingham Oratory Church completed after his death. Newman's letter is not a text promoting liturgical change per se as it is simply criticising Pugin's style. This is a distinction which the Biography does not make clear. This lack of distinction is important as it points towards an underlying narrative by the author of both the Biography and Newman on Vatican II.
Despite there being a single indexed reference, there are four further mentions of the liturgy in the Biography, two of which are especially significant. The Biography discusses Newman's responses to those who questioned why he was dismissive of Anglican liturgy as a Catholic when he had written so favourably of it as an Anglican.Footnote 30 It also discusses how ‘Newman was cautious about any attempt to change the liturgy…’ during his time at Oxford.Footnote 31 The text quotes from Newman's own caution about changing learned prayers, in enabling liberalism in the liturgy by removing passages from the Athanasian Creed which offended people, and how Newman started a Saints-day service in the University Church.Footnote 32 The author – Ker – it can therefore be argued, contradicts himself within Newman on Vatican II and within his own wider academic output when he says that Newman ‘never wrote about the liturgy…’ as he himself has written on this specific topic.
Other writers have acknowledged that Newman wrote on the liturgy. Writing in Adoremus in 2019, London Oratorian Michael Lang states that the ‘sacred liturgy does not feature prominently in Newman's vast literary corpus’.Footnote 33 Yet Ker's predecessor as the Newman scholar, C.S. Dessain, states that ‘Newman had much to say, not only on the sacraments, but on common worship and Liturgy’.Footnote 34 These interpretations are not mutually exclusive. Lang is correct in that in the context of the vast corpus of Newman's literary output, the liturgy is not a prominent subject either as an Anglican or a Roman Catholic. Dessain is, however, also correct in that within the vast corpus, there are many texts which discuss the liturgy both in theological and practical/pastoral terms and there is ample material for something of a ‘theology of the liturgy’ to be discerned. Peter Kwasniewski has edited a five-hundred-page plus collection of Newman's writings On Worship, Reverence, & Ritual.Footnote 35 This book is significant because, while it does not show a ‘systematic’ theology of the liturgy, it collects Newman's thought on the liturgy in one volume which allows for common themes to be discerned and the progression of Newman's thought to be seen.Footnote 36 Kwasniewski states that ‘allusions to liturgical rites are ubiquitous in Newman's writings…’Footnote 37
There is a strong argument that there is an error in Newman on Vatican II when it states that Newman ‘never wrote about the liturgy’. He clearly did write about the liturgy and liturgical reform from both a theological/doctrinal and a practical/pastoral perspective. We have also seen that it is not historically correct to dismiss Newman as not being a forerunner of the Liturgical Movement; there are tangible links both direct and indirect. It is legitimate to state, therefore, that Newman on Vatican II's justification for not pursing an in-depth discussion of Sacrosanctum Concilium and the post-Conciliar liturgical reforms in is flawed.
4
In this fourth section, I will argue against Newman on Vatican II's statement that Newman ‘could have nothing to say about Sacrosanctum Concilium’. I will show that he can provide a critical commentary to some of the principles of development and liturgy reform promoted in the Council's document on the liturgy.
Liturgical language provides a good example. Sacrosanctum Concilium states that
since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants…Footnote 38
Newman wrote about the use of liturgical language and, arguably, would have been troubled by the introduction and expansion of the use of the vernacular. As an Anglican, he had begun to understand the role language has in the transcendence of liturgy and worship. Newman states that to
be present at extempore prayer, is to hear prayers. Nay, it might happen, or rather often would happen, that we did not understand what was said; and then the person praying is scarcely praying ‘in a tongue understanded of the people’ (as our Article expresses it); he is rather interceding for the people, than praying with them, and leading their worship.Footnote 39
This Anglican attitude can be seen, in a developed form, after Newman had become a Catholic. When discussing his view of heaven, Newman stated that heaven ‘is not like this world; I will say that it is much more like, - a church. For in a place of worship no language of this world is heard…’.Footnote 40 This was not a mere aesthetic point but was part of Newman's theology of the transcendence of the liturgy. In The Idea of a University Newman explains this transcendence:
Clad in his sacerdotal vestments, he [the priest] sinks what is individual in himself altogether, and is but the representative of Him from whom he derives his commission. His words, his tones, his actions, his presence, lose their personality; one bishop, one priest, is like another; they all chant the same notes, and observe the same genuflexions, as they give one peace and one blessing, as they offer one and the same sacrifice. The Mass must not be said without a Missal under the priest's eye; nor in any language but that in which it has come down to us from the early hierarchs of the Western Church. But, when it is over, and the celebrant has resigned the vestments proper to it, then he resumes himself, and comes to us in the gifts and associations which attach to his person.Footnote 41
The use of Latin was not a mere accident or aesthetical but was integral to how Newman understood the liturgy and the role of sacred worship to transcend the world. This is one example, but it shows how Newman did write on the liturgy, wrote on the liturgy as a Catholic, had a theology of liturgy which also has relevance to Sacrosanctum Concilium.
Sacrosanctum Concilium states that the liturgical ‘rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people's powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation’.Footnote 42 This emphasis on ‘short’ is something Newman would also be arguably troubled by. As an Anglican he argued that if
any one alleges the length of the Church prayers as a reason for his not keeping his mind fixed upon them, I would beg him to ask his conscience whether he sincerely believes this to be at bottom the real cause of his inattention? Does he think he should attend better if the prayers were shorter? … it is quite clear that it is not the length of the service which is the real cause of his inattention, but his being deficient in the habit of being attentive.Footnote 43
It can be seen from this that Newman objected to having a shortening of services as a primary principle of liturgical reform.
Sacrosanctum Concilium states as its guiding principle: ‘to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change… [the] Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy’.Footnote 44 Newman would have been deeply suspicious of reforming the liturgy to make the Church more suitable to the times and the world. He stated that:
those men especially consider this, who say that we are but dreaming of centuries gone by, missing our mark and born out of time, when we insist on such duties and practices as are now merely out of fashion; those who point to the tumult and fever which agitates the whole nation, and say we must be busy and troubled too, in order to respond to it; who say that the tide of events has set in one way, and that we must give in to it, if we would be practical men; that it is idleness to attempt to stem a current, which it will be a great thing even to direct: that since the present age loves conversing and hearing about religion, and does not like silent thought, patient waiting, recurring prayers, severe exercises, that therefore we must obey it, and, dismissing rites and sacraments, convert the Gospel into a rational faith, so called, and a religion of the heart; let these men seriously consider St. Paul's exhortation, that we are to persevere in prayer—and that in every place—and the more, the more troubled and perplexed the affairs of this world become; not indeed omitting active exertions, but not, on that account, omitting prayer.Footnote 45
In another homily, Newman stated that
If prayers were right three centuries since, they are right now. If a Christian minister might suitably offer up common prayer by himself then, surely he may do so now. If he was then the spokesman of the saints far and near, gathering together their holy and concordant suffrages, and presenting them by virtue of his priesthood, he is so now. The revival of this usage is merely a matter of place and time; and though neither our Lord nor His Church would have us make sudden alterations, even though for the better, yet certainly we ought never to forget what is abstractedly our duty, what is in itself best, what it is we have to aim at and labour towards.Footnote 46
Newman was, therefore, clearly critical of a reform of the liturgy simply to accommodate ‘modern man’. It is not that he would object to the liturgy adapting to modern man as a secondary aspect of reform, rather, he would object to the liturgy being adapted to modern man as the primary cause.Footnote 47 To use a colloquialism, it is arguable that Newman saw this to be a case of the ‘tail wagging the dog’.
There is a clear argument, therefore, that Newman on Vatican II is incorrect when it states that Newman ‘could have nothing to say about Sacrosanctum Concilium’. Just from the brief snapshot I have given, Newman's writings are relevant to some of the principles of liturgical reform given in Sacrosanctum Concilium.
5
We must now turn to Newman on Vatican II's argument that ‘there were and are unintended consequences of the promulgation of the Constitution on which Newman would certainly wish to comment’. The text attempts to extricate Newman from the bitter debates over the post-Conciliar liturgical reform by labelling excesses from the reforms as ‘unintended consequences’ and ‘illegitimate developments’.Footnote 48 Yet the text offers no substantial theological justification for understanding the developments as ’illegitimate’, nor historical context for regarding them as ’unintended’. Both points are a matter of debate.Footnote 49 This lack of justification and context, or even an acknowledgment that these might be needed, undermines the book's argument. The text is basing its analysis of Newman upon premises when they are arguably unsound. A more convincing and relevant argument would have been made had the text used Newman's theory of development to evaluate the ‘illegitimate developments’ which affected the liturgy. So swiftly passing over the whole issue substantially weakens the relevance of Newman on Vatican II's analysis.
The text does not address the links Newman makes between practical reform of the liturgy and doctrinal changes. As an Anglican, Newman warned that ‘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 our souls’.Footnote 50 This shows Newman's pastoral concerns for liturgy reforms. Newman had concerns regarding the doctrinal impact of liturgical reforms. When discussing those who Newman labelled as worldly in their desire to make the liturgy more acceptable to them, he cautions that
they dislike the doctrine of the Liturgy. These men of the world do not like the anathemas of the Athanasian Creed, and other such peculiarities of our Services…I need not go on to speak against doctrinal alterations, because most thinking men are sufficiently averse to them. But, I earnestly beg you to consider whether we must not come to them if we once begin. For by altering immaterials, we merely raise without gratifying the desire of correcting; we excite the craving, but withhold the food. And it should be observed, that the changes called immaterial often contain in themselves the germ of some principle, of which they are thus the introduction…Footnote 51
Newman was convinced that in altering the externals of the liturgy, to make it more acceptable to ‘the world’, doctrinal change is incited. Newman on Vatican II does not address how Newman linked the reform of externals/immaterial in the liturgy with doctrinal change. Nor does it acknowledge the historical context of the introduction of liturgical reforms. Both factors undermine the overall argument.
6
A final flaw in Newman on Vatican II’s discussion of the liturgy is that it does not follow its analysis to a logical and substantive conclusion. It is merely stated that Newman would ‘wish to comment’ on certain issues. Several secondary aspects of the reforms are listed which would have been most difficult for Newman to accept. I do not dispute this reading. The issue I have is that Newman on Vatican II stops short of even making a supposition as to how Newman would react to the changes had he been a priest in 1969 when the Novus Ordo was introduced. If the task of the book is to present a corrective commentary on the Council documents and their interpretation, then surely this would be a natural step in the analysis.
I believe that, based on the liturgical principles outlined in this paper, Newman would have followed a path similar to that of another Saint, Josemaría Escrivà (1902-1975). Escrivà, the founder of Opus Dei, attempted to say the Novus Ordo in obedience to the Church but found he could not physically read the new Missals and was also attached to the structure, form and gestures of the Tridentine Mass. To accommodate Escrivà and many priests who were attached to the traditional form, Paul VI granted indults for private celebrations.Footnote 52 Despite the serious reservations he may have had, Newman would have accepted the decisions of the Council and the reform to the liturgy. I cannot see any argument that Newman would have followed/supported those who rejected the Council and the Novus Ordo and moved into schism. I am not presenting this – admittedly anachronistic – reading of how Newman would have reacted to Vatican II's liturgical reforms as definitive. This is purely speculative on my part. I do, however, believe that this is plausible given Newman's views as outlined in this paper – especially the effects of revising traditional liturgy.
Conclusion
This paper has argued that: (1) Newman on Vatican II conspicuously discusses Newman and the liturgy too briefly relative to this issue's importance for Catholics; (2) while not a ‘forerunner’, which is a strawman argument, Newman can be seen as having some tangible links to and influence on the Liturgical Movement; (3) Newman wrote extensively on the liturgy and liturgical reform as an Anglican and a Catholic; (4) Newman's thought can provide criticisms of the concepts of development and liturgical reform in Sacrosanctum Concilium; (5) Newman would not dismiss the post-Conciliar reforms as ‘unintended consequences’ and ‘illegitimate developments’ but would have seen them as a consequence of the Council, and; (6) somewhat anachronistically, but plausibly, I speculate that Newman would have had concerns over the effect of the revision of traditional liturgy but would most likely have followed a path which would have allowed him to retain both the older liturgical forms and full communion with the Church.
I wish the reader to take two principal understandings from this paper. Firstly, that St. John Henry Newman's writings contain important thought on liturgical theology and the authentic development of the liturgy – meaning he has a great deal to offer any study of the reforms of Vatican II. Secondly, historians and theologians can, and it is important that they do, make an effective challenge to Ian Ker's (self-proclaimed) dominance in the field of Newman studies.
