The following links cover different sources on the topic. But this post will mainly show that Saint John Henry Newman NEVER proposed the idea of a suspended Magisterium.

Catholic World Report has posted an article: Cardinal Newman, Archbishop Fernandez, and the “suspended Magisterium” thesis, July 15, 2023, by Dr. Edward Feser. This article is an edit of a July 14 post from Feser’s blog here. For clarity, Dr. Feser updated his thoughts on this topic on July 18: Archbishop Fernandez’s clarification. And Feser also clarified his own article on Newman, Fernandez, and the suspended Magisterium thesis in a July 21 reply to Michael Lofton of YouTube channel Reason and Theology: Lofton’s YouTube straw man.

The quotes and citations in Newman which seem to support a suspended Magisterium thesis are from his work, “Arians of the Fourth Century”, but with important clarifications here: Appendix, Note 5. In Note 5, Newman WITHDREW the remarks used by his contemporaries to claim that the Magisterium can be considered suspended. Saint Newman states unequivocally that he was misunderstood in those remarks, and that he formally withdraws those assertions. He also expresses the contrary idea unequivocally.

Here is what Newman wrote, in Note 5, in context, with my emphasis in bold. The portion is quotes is Newman quoting his previous work, which contains assertions that he then withdraws as these words were misunderstood.

Saint John Henry Newman:
In drawing out this comparison between the conduct of the Catholic Bishops and that of their flocks during the Arian troubles, I must not be understood as intending any conclusion inconsistent with the infallibility of the Ecclesia docens, (that is, the Church when teaching) and with the claim of the Pope and the Bishops to constitute the Church in that aspect. I am led to give this caution, because, for the want of it, I was seriously misunderstood in some quarters on my first writing on the above subject in the Rambler Magazine of May, 1859. But on that occasion I was writing simply historically, not doctrinally, and, while it is historically true, it is in no sense doctrinally false, that a Pope, as a private doctor, and much more Bishops, when not teaching formally, may err, as we find they did err in the fourth century. Pope Liberius might sign a Eusebian formula at Sirmium, and the mass of Bishops at Ariminum or elsewhere, and yet they might, in spite of this error, be infallible in their ex cathedra decisions.

The reason of my being misunderstood arose from two or three clauses or expressions which occurred in the course of my remarks, which I should not have used had I anticipated how they would be taken, and which I avail myself of this opportunity to explain and withdraw. First, I will quote the passage which bore a meaning which I certainly did not intend, and then I will note the phrases which seem to have given this meaning to it. It will be seen how little, when those phrases are withdrawn, the sense of the passage, as I intended it, is affected by the withdrawal. I said then:—”It is not a little remarkable, that, though, historically speaking, the fourth century is the age of doctors, illustrated, as it is, by the Saints Athanasius, Hilary, the two Gregories, Basil, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine, (and all those saints bishops also), except one, nevertheless in that very day the Divine tradition committed to the infallible Church was proclaimed and maintained far more by the faithful than by the Episcopate.

“Here of course I must explain:—in saying this then, undoubtedly I am not denying that the great body of the Bishops were in their internal belief orthodox; nor that there were numbers of clergy who stood by the laity and acted as their centers and guides; nor that the laity actually received their faith, in the first instance, from the Bishops and clergy; nor that some portions of the laity were ignorant, and other portions were at length corrupted by the Arian teachers, who got possession of the Sees, and ordained an heretical clergy:—but I mean still, that in that time of immense confusion the divine dogma of our Lord’s divinity was proclaimed, enforced, maintained, and (humanly speaking) preserved, far more by the “Ecclesia docta” than by the “Ecclesia docens;” that the body of the Episcopate was unfaithful to its commission, while the body of the laity was faithful to its baptism; that at one time the pope, at other times a patriarchal, metropolitan, or other great see, at other times general councils, said what they should not have said, or did what obscured and compromised revealed truth; while, on the other hand, it was the Christian people, who, under Providence, were the ecclesiastical strength of Athanasius, Hilary, Eusebius of Vercellæ, and other great solitary confessors, who would have failed without them …”

“On the one hand, then, I say, that there was a temporary suspense of the functions of the ‘Ecclesia docens.’ The body of Bishops failed in their confession of the faith. They spoke variously, one against another; there was nothing, after Nicæa, of firm, unvarying, consistent testimony, for nearly sixty years …”

“We come secondly to the proofs of the fidelity of the laity, and the effectiveness of that fidelity, during that domination of Imperial heresy, to which the foregoing passages have related.”

The three clauses which furnished matter of objection were these:—I said, (1), that “there was a temporary suspense of the functions of the ‘Ecclesia docens;'” (2), that “the body of Bishops failed in their confession of the faith.” (3), that “general councils, &c., said what they should not have said, or did what obscured and compromised revealed truth.”

(1). That “there was a temporary suspense of the functions of the Ecclesia docens” is not true, if by saying so is meant that the Council of Nicæa held in 325 did not sufficiently define and promulgate for all times and all places the dogma of our Lord’s divinity, and that the notoriety of that Council and the voices of its great supporters and maintainers, as Athanasius, Hilary, &c., did not bring home the dogma to the intelligence of the faithful in all parts of Christendom. But what I meant by “suspense” (I did not say “suspension,” purposely,) was only this, that there was no authoritative utterance of the Church’s infallible voice in matter of fact between the Nicene Council, A.D. 325, and the Council of Constantinople, A.D. 381, or, in the words which I actually used, “there was nothing after Nicæa of firm, unvarying, consistent testimony for nearly sixty years.” As writing before the Vatican Definition of 1870, I did not lay stress upon the Roman Councils under Popes Julius and Damasus [Note 3].

(2). That “the body of Bishops failed in their confession of the faith,” p. 17. Here, if the word “body” is used in the sense of the Latin “corpus,” as “corpus” is used in theological treatises, and as it doubtless would be translated for the benefit of readers ignorant of the English language, certainly this would be a heretical statement. But I meant nothing of the kind. I used it in the vague, familiar, genuine sense of which Johnson gives instances in his dictionary, as meaning “the great preponderance,” or, “the mass” of Bishops, viewing them in the main or the gross, as a cumulus of individuals….”

(3). That “general councils said what they should not have said, and did what obscured and compromised revealed truth.” Here again the question to be determined is what is meant by the word “general.” If I meant by “general” ecumenical, I should have spoken as no Catholic can speak; but ecumenical Councils there were none between 325 and 381, and so I could not be referring to any; and in matter of fact I used the word “general” in contrast to “ecumenical,” as I had used it in Tract No. 90, and as Bellarmine uses the word…. When I spoke then of “general councils compromising revealed truth,” I spoke of the Arian or Eusebian Councils, not of the Catholic.

I hope this is enough to observe on this subject.
[Source: Note 5, “The Orthodoxy of the Body of the Faithful during the Supremacy of Arianism”,

The above quotes are sufficient to refute the claim that Saint John Henry Newman ever proposed the errors that the proponents of a suspended Magisterium attribute to him.

(a) Newman rejected, above, the idea of the suspension of the Magisterium. Instead, he pointed out that no infallible teaching was issued on a particular topic (against Arianism) for a period of time. And this is true of every time period, that there are not a continual series of infallible teachings issued again and again. For Nicaea had already condemned Arianism, and a later Council repeated the condemnation.

(b) Newman did not accuse the body of Bishops, in the formal sense, of failing in their confession of the Faith. He only noted, historically, that many Bishops, even gathered in local Councils, failed to assert orthodoxy and fell into Arianism or semi-Arianism. Thus, Newman’s words cannot be used to claim that the successors to the Apostles, as a body led by the Pope, can ever teach or commit heresy, can ever fail in faith, can ever lead the faithful astray, or that they can ever fail in their role as successors to the Apostles by suspending (refusing to use) their teaching authority.

(c) Newman did not accuse Ecumenical Councils of this same type of failure, as he was speaking of the more prominent lesser Councils, which were larger than the local Councils, but not representative of the body of Bishops led by the Pope (as is the mark of Ecumenical Councils).

Then I will add that the Roman Pontiff also cannot fail in any of those ways. Not only does the charism of truth and never-failing faith prevent the Roman Pontiff from erring by commission, through apostasy, heresy, schism, idolatry, etc., but the very same charism prevents the Roman Pontiff from erring by omission, such that he would cease to exercise his authority over doctrine and discipline. Now some critics of the Roman Pontiff, who speak as if they have the role to judge and correct the successor of Peter (while in truth the First See is judged by no one but God), will bitch and moan that the Pope refuses to teach the ideas they like and condemn the ideas they dislike; but it is for the Lord Jesus Christ, eternal Head of the Church — the teaching Church as well as the Church in all Her other essential aspects, to decide what the Pope and the body of Bishops led by him will decide on doctrine and discipline, and when and how they will express it. No one has a right to judge that the Pope and the body of Bishops have failed, so as to condemn them with the implied accusation of a grave sin of omission in their duties as teachers of the Church. The indefectibility of the Church and the charism of truth and never-failing faith apply to the Pope and the body of Bishops teaching with him so as to exclude grave errors on doctrine and discipline of both commission and omission.

In summary, the claim that the Magisterium was ever suspended:
* was never the intended meaning of St. Newman
* is contrary to the teaching of the First and Second Vatican Councils on the charism of truth and never-failing faith and on the teaching authority of the Pope and the body of Bishops [see Pastor Aeternus 4, 7; as well as Lumen Gentium 22]
* is heretical if it includes the claim that the body of Bishops, as a body, or the Roman Pontiff failed in faith by commission or omission

For the First Vatican Council teaches:

“1. The Son of God, redeemer of the human race, our lord Jesus Christ, promised, when about to return to his heavenly Father, that he would be with this Church militant upon earth all days even to the end of the world. Hence never at any time has he ceased to stand by his beloved bride, assisting her when she teaches, blessing her in her labors and bringing her help when she is in danger.” [Dei Filus]

The theory of the suspended Magisterium contradicts the above dogma that Jesus Christ, the eternal Head of the Church, never at any time ceases to act through His Church.

First Vatican Council, Dei Filius: “5. Everybody knows that those heresies, condemned by the fathers of Trent, which rejected the divine magisterium of the Church and allowed religious questions to be a matter for the judgment of each individual, have gradually collapsed into a multiplicity of sects, either at variance or in agreement with one another; and by this means a good many people have had all faith in Christ destroyed.”

The claim that the Magisterium ever has been, is currently, or ever could be suspended is a rejection of the divine nature of the Magisterium, as it treats the Magisterium as if it could fail by omission due to human faults and failings. The Church is not merely human, but both human and divine, like Christ. And so any thesis which speaks as if the Church could fail, defect, lose Her essential character, or have any essential character suspended, even for a limited time, either accuses the divine Lord Jesus Christ of grave error, or treats the Church as merely human. The indefectibility of the Church limits the errors that are possible, even when the Church teaches or rules non-infallibly.

First Vatican Council, Dei Filius: “For just as God wills all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, just as Christ came to save what was lost and to gather into one the children of God who were scattered abroad, so the Church, appointed by God to be mother and mistress of nations, recognizes her obligations to all and is always ready and anxious to raise the fallen, to steady those who stumble, to embrace those who return, and to strengthen the good and urge them on to what is better. Thus she can never cease from witnessing to the truth of God which heals all and from declaring it, for she knows that these words were directed to her: ‘My spirit which is upon you, and my words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth from this time forth and for evermore.’

“10. And so we, following in the footsteps of our predecessors, in accordance with our supreme apostolic office, have never left off teaching and defending Catholic truth and condemning erroneous doctrines.”

From the above teaching of the First Vatican Council, it is clearly Catholic dogma that the Church’s Magisterium is never suspended.

Notice that St. Newman praises the body of the faithful, during the Arian controversy in the Church, in retaining the Faith as a body, though many individuals fell into that heresy. In my understanding, the indefectibility of the Church guarantees the never-failing faith of the Roman Pontiff (in the charism of truth and never-failing faith), and in the body of Bishops as a body led by the Pope, and in the body of the faithful led by the Pope and body of Bishops. The Church can never be just the faithful Shepherds without a faithful flock, nor just a faithful flock with only unfaithful Shepherds.

Addendum

I am not accusing Dr. Ed Feser of teaching or holding to the suspended Magisterium thesis. However, his position seems too close to that error, and not close enough to the above quoted teachings of Vatican I.

I disagree with Feser’s position, on another topic, that the Pope and body of Bishops, when not teaching infallibly, can err to any extent. My position is that the indefectibility of the Church guarantees that infallible teachings cannot err at all, and that non-infallible teachings cannot err to a grave extent. But Feser, in arguing against those who defend Pope Francis, assumes that the non-infallible teachings must either be free from all error (a position he rightly rejects) or be subject to any degree or type of error. He does not seem to consider the proposition that non-infallible teachings can err to a limited extent only.

Ronald L Conte Jr