Tags
Catholic Church, Catholicism, Christianity, Church & State, controversy, history, Newman, Papacy
Newman’s defence of Infallibility deserves to be read in full, as it remains one of the best I know. That those who were making extreme claims for the dogma were as dissatisfied as those who disliked the concept being made into a dogma, indicated, as time has shown, that Newman had it about right.
Newman was equally forthright in dealing with the question of ‘divided allegiance’. Gladstone had claimed that since the Pope was infallible in matters concerning faith and morals, and since there was no area of life which did not involve at least one of these, he was, in practice, able to command the civic and public allegiance of his subjects: ‘therefore Catholics are moral and metal slaves, and every convert and member of the Pope’s Church places his loyalty and civic duty at the mercy of another.’[iv] Far from shying away from the duty of obedience to those set in ecclesiastical authority, Newman, in the best Protestant style, cited the relevant passage from St. Paul (Hebrews 13: 17) enjoining submission to those placed in positions of authority and challenged Gladstone directly: ‘Is there any liberalistic reading of this Scripture passage?’[v] Catholics held that the Pope was the successor of St. Peter; that being so the obedience paid to him was only that demanded by Holy Scripture itself – and Newman denied utterly that obedience to that authority amounted to ‘slavery’. He drew an analogy between divine and human law. The Law, he argued, was ‘supreme’ and those under it were bound to follow its direction, but no one would claim it ‘interferes either with our comfort or our conscience.’ Newman attempted to correct the English obsession with the power of the Pope. Catholic consciences, like those of any Christian, were regulated by an ancient system of moral theology deriving from sources common to all: the Ten Commandments; the Pauline injunctions of Faith, Hope and Charity; and the practices of fasting, sabbatarianism and tithing; the Pope had little, if anything, to do with these matters. The Pope’s jurisdiction lay in matters ecclesiastical, not in civil affairs; Gladstone’s evident confusion of the two was, Newman commented wryly, the origin of his alarm.
Nor did Newman shy away from Gladstone’s attempt to link Infallibility and the Syllabus. He denied that any of the Pope’s words could be construed as releasing subjects from their allegiance to the State, or as condemning either freedom of the press or of conscience. Failing to anticipate where arguments for the latter would lead, Newman asserted that that no one would say that everything should be published, or that people had the right to unrestricted liberty; every State provided, in its laws, for limits to these things; it was the abuse of such liberty, not the liberties themselves, which the Pope condemned. It was the ‘liberty of self-will’ which was being anathematised, not liberty per se. The Syllabus was, Newman reminded Gladstone, a collection of propositions already condemned in the writings of previous Popes; it had been sent by Pius IX to his bishops, and could only be properly understood in that context; it contained no new matter by the Pope. None of this justified Gladstone’s equating the Syllabus with ex cathedra pronouncements of the Holy See: ‘Utterances which must be received as coming from an Infallible Voice, are not made every day, indeed they are very rare; and those which are by some persons affirmed or assumed to be such, do not always turn out what they are said to be.’ Patience was the ‘sine qua non’ when it came to the interpretation of documents emanating from Rome. It was quite untenable, in Newman’s view, to attribute Infallibility to the Syllabus; from this came all Gladstone’s errors.
There was a bit of a slippery slope hiding in there but, given that no one saw that one coming, it’s hard to fault either of them, and this is a very interesting conversation.
I suppose in theory we could dream up a scenario where obedience to the Pope would supersede the state, wait, actually there were two, Italy and Germany in the 30s and early 40s, and that would make me say, “would that it were so”.
LikeLike
Yes, there was, and indeed is. Newman’s argument, like most of his, is too subtle at times.
LikeLike
He does tend to be a bit too subtle at time, and yet we’ve been coming down what is pretty much a new road since.
LikeLike
Very true, Neo. The dilemma remains to this day.
LikeLike
It does, and I haven’t found much of an answer, and it doesn’t really seem that anyone else has either.
LikeLike
It is the privilege of a free people to worry about such things.
LikeLike
Indeed it is.
LikeLike
Again, a good prose, but a few points:-
“Newman, in the best Protestant style, cited the relevant passage from St. Paul ”
That is to say, he was proof-texting, as if that is something particularly “Protestant”.
“Catholics held that the Pope was the successor of St. Peter;”
As a personal commitment of choice in belonging to the church of Rome. It doesn’t mean that it’s true, as we have already debated on this blog.
“The Pope’s jurisdiction lay in matters ecclesiastical, not in civil affairs; Gladstone’s evident confusion of the two was, Newman commented wryly, the origin of his alarm.”
There’s Unam Sanctam once again. As ever, RCs waft a vague hand over the issue with their usual cognitive dissonance as regards this matter.
I trust I am not the only one enjoying this series for its prose, but the arguments seem to me to be rather weak, glorying in a professed elevated status for the church and bishop of Rome which is but a mere attachment to power. Such a shame that the see of the ancient Patriarch of the West continues to enjoy its lowered status, engrossing itself in its claimed primacy of power, instead of its elevated destiny with a primacy of honour to edify the whole world.
S.
LikeLike
On the first, yes, my point is that Newman could cite bible passages with the best of them. There is an unbroken line since Peter, no other patriarch has made the claim Rome makes. Quite what your problem with this, other than Anglicans needing to claim that history is not as clear cut as they would like, I am not clear myself. What level of evidence would you need – a video?
The point about Unam Sanctam is that nobody but anti-Catholics, with tier usual myopia, has claimed for centuries that the Church has supreme jurisdiction over matters of secular jurisdiction. As I have said, I should be happy if the Church were to clarify it, but that is for others.
Far from glorying in an elevated status, I had read Newman as trying to draw a balance between the Ultras and the liberals ( as defined by him in his Bigioltto speech, which is cited somewhere here) and, as is the case so often, those taking a middle position get shot at from both sides.
As we have discussed before, primacy of honour is a word whose meaning is elusive. Either there is a magisterium which can say what is or is not orthodox! or there is a talking shop? I fear that no one but some Western Anglicans sees your church’s current structure of governance as a model for the world wide church, not least as it seems to consist of a form of cultural imperialism which the world south of the Mediterranean finds unacceptable.
LikeLike
OK, OK – let me try to get to grips with your views on Unam Sanctam and to understand them. I have tried before to raise the point about a half-life for Vatican documents, but I was told ‘no’. It just seems to me like having it both ways.
I simply don’t know what you mean when it comes to cultural imperialism as regards todays Anglicanism. Are Anglicans in England trying to impose their church theology onto others? I don’t think so.
I’ve written a lot today – perhaps too much, and it might on reflection come across as too combative. Wishing you all a lovely Norwich weekend – such an interesting story in the Telegraph about ancient footprints found on the Norfolk coast.
S.
LikeLike
I follow events in the Gafcon churches with interest, and I think if you talk, as I did recently, to Nigerian and Ugandan Christians you will find that they disagree with you. The cultural imperialist, like the old imperialist, often fails to see that views he considers normative -in your case women priests – are, to those on the ground in countries like Uganda, attempts to impose a foreign model. Of course you don’t think it is, any more than any other Englishman ever thought that bringing civilisation to those without it was a bad thing. But it is the view from Uganda and Nigeria which matters. The more your church follows the agenda of ‘gay rights’ the more the division with African churches will widen.
I never mind combative arguments, indeed, rather enjoy them. I would rather like to go to Happisburgh to see the footprints, but have a meeting of the Historical Association to chair instead.
I hope you have a good week end. C
LikeLike
As you may have guessed, I have much experience of, shall we say the ‘non white world’, for many years. If one goes in for the full gambit of post-colonial theory, then you might have a point. However, there is no imposition of female priests or gays or whatever else going on in Nigeria or Uganda, and the ‘colonial’ reference is just a squeal of convenience often used. Certainly the church in some place great faith is looking at issues which cause much vexation – many Africans, as I do know, look on all of these western style arguments on sexuality and gender with total incomprehensibility. For that reason, whilst I have made my views clear on this blog about such matters, I am not one to want the C of E to change without taking into account the others. We all know where such rash changes get us: look at Rome’s claims about infallibility and it’s effect on the Old Catholics, just to pick one example.
The C of E is following a ‘gay rights’ agenda? Show me the evidence? I suspect that if they do have such views, it will be misinformation stoked up by evangelicals or Romanists intent on ‘stealing’ adherents. I was talking to my friend David W the other day about such activities of missionaries in history – and it’s quite a common ploy, so it would seem.
Now, I have just seen that I have let slip a reply to my Macaulay comment without a response, so let me address that now. 🙂
S.
LikeLike
I am not sure I said the C of E was following such an agenda, but rather that there are those in Gafcon who think that is what it is doing. There may be other reasons why the ABC has not spoken out boldly and plainly about the homophobia of some African bishops, but I am unable to fathom it.
LikeLike
“The C of E is following a ‘gay rights’ agenda? Show me the evidence? I suspect that if they do have such views, it will be misinformation stoked up by evangelicals or Romanists intent on ‘stealing’ adherents.” This is a joke right, you’re pulling our leg, you can’t seriously expect any informed Christian not to chuckle at such an abdication of responsibility.
I do enjoy your take on all things Anglican, they are so ‘de rigueur’. I won’t try, nor do I think I am able to argue you out of your sincerely held opinions, I respect you for holding them, I really do. However from this English Catholics perspective The Anglican experiment is slowly unravelling, a bit like a Greek tragedy, before my eyes, and I don’t like what I see, it weakens Christianity in the UK and that is no good for any of us.
LikeLike
Thanks for the comment. I refer you to my reply to C. In which I linked to this article:- http://www.anglicannews.org/news/2014/01/more-primates-issue-statements-on-lgbt-community-treatment.aspx
“Anglican experiment”, “unravelling”, “tragedy” – yes, I’ve heard those terms before, often from converts. Rather like Nietzsche’s “death of God”, it’s a type of wishful thinking, so it seems to me.
LikeLike
That’s fine Struans. I can’t think of a Christian anywhere that want to execute people for homosexuality, none, nada, zilch. The phrase “love the sinner, hate the sin” comes to mind. That’s for Muslims and such to propose. I would also add that in Africa, it has proved to be a calamitous public health hazard, it’s a bit better now, after President Bush spent most of a billion dollars fighting AIDS on the continent, although we’ve backed off with this administration. It quite literally has decimated the continent, maybe that’s why they’re a bit extreme about it.
But why isn’t the Anglican hierarchy defending clergy, their own and others, in the United Kingdom, who preach on the teachings that condemn the practice, not the practitioner, in no uncertain terms. If the Anglicans can’t do better than that, (and my church isn’t much better, by the way) it has become a useless appendage of the state. In short, I rather agree with Mark here.
If you stand for nothing, you’ll fall for anything, as they say.
LikeLike
I have failed to spot the ABC telling off his fellow bishops in Uganda for their clear homophobia; but perhaps there is a link to this happening that I have missed?
LikeLike
No, I haven’t seen that one either. It’s wrong but, it may also, given their circumstances, be understandable.
LikeLike
It is indeed, but given Struans’ calls for Popes to repudiate a decree no Catholic has mentioned in centuries, one would have thought his own leader would have provided an example by boldly repudiating something that is current.
LikeLike
True enough. It strikes me that that particular decree was, de facto, a dead letter the day it was issued, anyway. Anything that unites the King of England with the King of France against you in the fourteenth century just has to be a terrible idea. I have no idea if it was ever used, except by protestants.
LikeLike
There is an explanation I have seen mounted, to the effect that it was limited to that time and place. I’d be content with that – and the fact the Church has not mentioned in in centuries suggests it is so.
LikeLike
Sounds reasonable to me, and I agree with that, the Church certainly hasn’t been pushing it for a long time.
LikeLike
I sometimes think that the internet is a bad thing. I wonder how many people even knew it existed before the Internet age? I did, but then I am a professional historian 🙂
LikeLike
I had heard of it but that was it, but as you say, and I am a history buff myself. 🙂
LikeLike
I think that about sums it up.
LikeLike
I do as well.
LikeLike
NEO: “not defending clergy” – can you give me a couple of ‘for examples’…I really am unsure as to what you mean.
S.
LikeLike
C: The ABC telling off his bishops…..I’m surprised at you. We are not the command and control model of the church of Rome. African bishops are not ‘his bishops’. And I am not conceding that your point is correct anyway – I am sure that I have read that he has expressed clear views, but I am in a rush to go to church right now.
S.
LikeLike
I understand that, but does that mean he cannot express an opinion?
I hope Church was edifying. C
LikeLike
Re Unam Sanctam, let me post this one again – a lecture by a former editor of the Catholic Herald:
http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/1302-and-all-that-papal-bulldozers-through-seven-centuries
LikeLike
Yes, church was marvellous. Even after the riches of India, I found that once again that the Margaret Rizza communion setting is wonderful. Interestingly, our organist has a connection to the Brompton Oratory, and has picked up some musical tips from there. I understand that RC music in England is on the up, and that RCs leverage the RCSM almost as much as us Anglicans. I hope this is true – it would be wonderful if the English musical tradition can be spread, whatever the denomination.
Re ABC, is this good enough: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25959942
S.
LikeLike
On ABC, a good start, and I suspect he is writing privately to the bishops there, and quite rightly not using a megaphone.
On church music, I wish RCC music were on the ‘up’. It is generally pretty dreadful, but alas, now, except in cathedrals, so is so much Anglican hymnody.
The Anglican Cathedral evensong is one of the glories of Christianity 🙂
LikeLike
Struans, Dr. Alan Clifford of Norwich’s (1st, I think) Reformed Church would have been a good start when he was nearly prosecuted for a hate crime for emailing a biblical tract last year.
Of course I realize its difficult to hear about these things in a country without free speech. Here’s the link
http://nebraskaenergyobserver.wordpress.com/2013/09/06/free-speech-not-in-the-united-kingdom/
There are others as well.
LikeLike