Newman’s Ecclesiology

Newman’s ecclesiology encompasses such issues as the role of the laity, the relationship between theologians and the magisterium and the role of authority. Certain dimensions of his ecclesiology drew fire from his critics although the suspicions of his orthodoxy (levelled at him by other Catholics) were unjustified and the Vatican II declaration on the Church vindicates his arguments. Nevertheless certain of his views are somewhat dangerous in that they appear to reflect an overly positive view at times such as, for example, the notion that the laity ought to be consulted on matters of faith – quite what this entails is of supreme importance.

The concept of the threefold office of the Church comprises Newman’s ecclesiological views. He articulates this view in his 1877 preface to ‘Lectures on the Prophetical Office of the Church’, written when he was atill an Anglican. This threefold office corresponds to the threefold ministry of Christ, whose body the Church is. The three offices – prophetic, priestly and kingly – correspond to three offices in the Church, respectively: theology (prophetic), the worshipping community (priestly) and governance – the provenance of the Pope and the hierarchy (kingly). Even during his period as an Anglican Newman had developed an ecclesiology which, although conceived of as a ‘Via Media’ between Protestantism and the Roman Catholic Church, was heavily indebted to the Church Fathers. He wanted to return to the Catholicism of the Church. Newman was utterly opposed to the protestant notion of ‘private judgement’ wherein each individual judged revelation of his accord. The simple historical fact that so many diverse opinions resulted through this emphasis on ‘sola scriptura’ was enough to show forth the need for the authority of the Church which correctly interprets scripture (does not ‘invent’ it, although development of doctrine may occur, i.e. a making explicit of what was already implicit in revelation). This notion of development can be seen as the result of Newman’s division of tradition into ‘Episcopal’ (derived from the apostles) and ‘Prophetical’ (derived from the interpretation of revelation. In this preface Newman also sought to explore the relation between the formal teaching of the Church and its popular manifestation. Thus Newman was able to both acknowledge that there was corruption in the Church as well as assert that this cannot be attributed to the official teaching of the Church. The role of the theologian is to attempt to regulate the teaching of the Church, although he was also sensitive to popular devotion and felt theology needed to let this seep through so that it may not become cold and rigid. Newman even went so far as to express his doubts that, were any nation to completely do away with superstition, faith could still be said to exist there.

This brings us to the issue of the role of the Laity – something that brought about suspicions of his orthodoxy. Newman’s experiences as Rector of the Catholic University of Ireland (1851-1858) made him aware of the little regard with which the hierarchy regarded the laity. Newman wrote an article in the liberal Catholic publication ‘The Rambler’ (of which he had been made editor – a ‘compromise’ choice, it was hoped he would reign in the more radical aspects of the paper whilst still contributing to the task of creating an educated laity) entitled “On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine”. In this work he argued that the Church ‘consults’ the laity (in the sense of inquiring into a matter of fact, not of asking its opinion) before defining a doctrine. The ‘consensus fidelium’ was an indicator of the faith of the Church. Newman had first explored this idea in his work ‘The Arians of the Fourth Century’ in which he argued that it had been the laity, not the Bishops, who had upheld orthodoxy. Newman argued that the Church had to take into account the faithful and that this was necessary for its well-being. This did not go down well with members of the Roman curia nor with Catholics closer to home such as Cardinal Manning. It was considered that Newman was endangering the notion of authority and his statement that “there was a temporary suspense of the functions of the Ecclesia docens” in the fourth century appeared to many that Newman was calling into question the infallibility of the Church’s magisterium by claiming that it had failed over the Arian controversy. Monsignor Talbot in Rome interpreted Newman’s invocation of the “consensus fidelium” as meaning a consensus of the faithful in opposition to the clergy. As Ian Ker points out, Newman’s terminology – his use of the word consult – was certainly the cause of much confusion. These arguments, however, do not stand up when one considers Newman’s respect for authority (more will be said on this in due course). What they reflected was an inflated view of the hierarchy which was seen as the ‘real’ Church whilst the laity were simply ‘passengers’. Vatican II’s decree on the dogmatic constitution of the Church, ‘Lumen Gentium’, vindicates Newman’s approach by seeing the Church as ‘The People of God’, that is both clergy and laity whose role was given much greater emphasis than in the past. On this, as with many things, Newman can be seen to have been ahead of his time.

Nevertheless, it must be said that on this issue one can see why many would have had qualms. For example, today many Catholics (mistakenly) appeal to this notion in defense of their dissenting views against the magisterium. If the Church were to consult the faithful on matters of doctrine today, she may be given a rather odd, if not downright heretical, view. This, of course, is to look on one aspect of Newman’s ecclesiology to the neglect of others such as the authority of the Church. As already noted, Newman felt all needed to co-exist in a creative tension for the Church to function correctly. Also Newman’s conception of the ‘faithful’ was one which tried to reflect the earlier Church’s conception – that of all faithful, baptized Christians – before a stark division had been made between clergy and laity.

It is said to reflect that these suspicions on his orthodoxy had such an effect that Newman ceased to publish until spurred into action by Charles Kingsley’s attack on him which gave rise to Newman’s classic ‘Apologia pro vita sua’. With this work Newman endeared himself once again to English Catholics. When one considers Newman’s views on authority, however, it is difficult to understand how one could have doubted his orthodoxy. He was, to be sure, no ‘ultramontane’ such as Cardinal Manning, yet neither could he be seen as a liberal Catholic who despised tradition. This can be seen in his rejection of the principle of private judgment and his emphasis on the need for an authoritative protection of the “deposit of faith”. Thus he was a defender of infallibility and was particularly pleased with the decree when it eventually came out for it was fairly restrained. He championed the rights of conscience but this had a role in the practical sphere in which infallible judgements could not be pronounced. Conscience could not simply go against authority without due consideration and the need for an informed conscience.

As against theologians who would make martyrs of their being silenced (a la Hans Kung), he asserted that even when in a particular case the hierarchical Church may be wrong there is a need for the theologian to abide by the decision out of the “obedience of faith” even though he may hope that in time his opinion may be vindicated: one can see this sort of attitude in such theologians as Yves Congar and Henri de Lubac – their insights ultimately being taken up into the purview of the Church. That said, he did desire greater discussion amongst theologians that an opinion may either be vindicated or eventually condemned and looked to the Middle Ages as an ideal when the Church ‘let things go’ for a period of time until it finally made a decision. But submission to authority was not something which Newman wished to downplay, even when it may be unjust, for challenging it only does greater damage to the Church as a whole.

Newman’s ecclesiological views did not warrant the suspicions with which certain members of the Church looked upon them. He was ahead of his time and his influence can be seen in Vatican II documents. His being chosen as a Cardinal is also a vindication of his orthodoxy even in his own time.