The other evening I was telling my conversion story to a parish group and I explained how I grew up in sectarian Christianity. The Protestant Evangelicalism I grew up in was fissiparous and full of independent denominations, independent congregations and independent Christians who didn't really belong to any group. Within this sectarianism you usually found unity of belief within any one congregation or denomination, but you did not find unity of form. That is to say, each group was an independent and autonomous collection of individuals.
When I became an Anglican I left sectarian religion and was looking for the ancient apostolic Church. The Church of England seemed a good bet. They had the old buildings, the ancient spirituality, the liturgy and the history to back them up. Furthermore, they were not split off into countless independent congregations and denominations. They seemed to have a center that would hold. However, what I discovered was that I had gone from the sectarian error to the latitudinarian error. Latitudinarianism is that heresy that allows members of the group to believe whatever they like (and behave however they like) because they do not want to be exclusive.
As Newman observes, one either falls into the sectarian error and sacrifices unity of form for unity of doctrine or one falls into the latitudinarian error and sacrifices unity of doctrine for unity of form. Both of these are extremes. So where is the true via media between them?
Only with an infallible authority can one maintain both unity of form and unity of doctrine. The via media between them is actually found within the Catholic faith. With an infallible authority one has the teaching authority that can maintain unity of doctrine, and with an infallible authority as the figurehead the church can also maintain unity of form.
The critic will say, "Ah yes, but you Catholics are also divided among yourselves. You have traditionalists and liberals and charismatics and Franciscans and Jesuits and Benedictines and the list goes on and on and on." Yes and no. Yes, we have many differences of opinion and sadly, we do not always enjoy unity of doctrine with every Catholic. However, that is not the point. The point is that with an infallible authority we have the resource and focus for unity of form and unity of doctrine.
This unity is not the same thing as uniformity. Catholics may disagree with the infallible authority, but the authority is still there. They may disobey and dissent, but there is something to disagree with and dissent from. In the Catholic Church the authority that is there provides a rock on which to build.
As current events are showing, all the other houses are built on shifting sand.
19 comments:
Hi Father,bit of news re your book.I gave it away.Oh not because I didn't like it,but I know this lovely Anglican Priest and well...........I just couldn't resist giving him a little of your background along with the book.Anyway,he seemed quite overwhelmed with the gesture,so perhaps you would remember him in your prayers Fr Michael T.Me too,if that's OK.Not my best couple of weeks.And yes,yes,I will be ordering another book......
Fr. Longenecker,
I like this post. A Reformed acquaintance of mine once said, "lets pray we take our Faith more seriously then we take ourselves."
Your post reminded me of that.
This is a very helpful post, Father. 'Via media' is certainly a term beloved of Anglicans; it seemed to make sense to me as an Episcopalian because I felt that we were not really either Protestant or Catholic, though I see more clearly now how Protestant Anglicanism actually is. I have read that 'via media' was Newman's own thesis during his Anglican years, which makes his later rejection of it all the more effective. Of course Catholicism holds the true balance between uniformity of form and uniformity of doctrine, but the idea of Rome as being the true 'via media' is a surprising revelation!
One further sign that the Episcopal house is built on sand: the All Saints Sisters of the Poor, the most traditional (and some of us would say, the best) of the Anglican religious in this country, have just been received into the Catholic Church. The story is at The Catholic Review Online (I tried to include the link but couldn't get it to fit, sorry)
GREAT post, Father. I once heard it said (was it you?) that Anglicans have one book of prayer but many contradictory faiths; Catholics have one faith with many different expressions. I always find it difficult to explain to my Protestant friends that the Catholic faith--tradition, authority, doctrine, dogma--has an existence in and of itself regardless of how many Catholic people practice and live it properly. For Protestants, it seems that the faith is only what the faithful choose to believe--hence its fissiparous nature and the migration of Protestants from one denomination to another in keeping with their own personal beliefs.
via media = vile mediocrity
As an Anglican I never believed in the "via media" because intellectually that simply made no sense to me. Two opposing "truths" can't both be right! Rather I used to call it the vile mediocrity.
It is like the Church of Laodicea which the Lord talks about in the Book of Revelation as being "neither hot nor cold"; so He said, "I will spew you out of my mouth."
It's interesting to me that every convert from Anglicanism whom I've heard or read gives "authority" as their root motive for entering the Catholic Church. But whatever "authority" existed before in the AC is still there; splitting does not alter that, not really, nor does change alter it (ordination of women, etc.). If it ever had any authority at all, it still does.
I'm afraid authority is not the real issue, despite what it may *feel* like to converts. It seems what they really mean is a need for stability, rather than authority. In the face of change, they search for something unchangeable. It's the permanence of the Church that appeals to them and not its authority. I think when they use the term, they mean that they themselves *endow* it (specifically, the papacy) with authority because they need its stability.
They are very welcome, whatever their motive, of course, but such an enormous decision as conversion would call for scrutiny of motive, it would seem. Self-scrutiny, not just scrutiny of external factors.
Within the Church herself, reaction to change is going on. Many justifications are given, but there may be the same dislike/fear of change at the root of it all.
I am a convert myself, but I would give historical authenticity as a motive rather than authority--which would be secondary to authenticity. Post-conversion brings many ancillary motives to the surface, of course, but, like authority, they are not the primary motive.
@éstiel: "but such an enormous decision as conversion would call for scrutiny of motive, it would seem. Self-scrutiny, not just scrutiny of external factors."
Not necessarily. I became an Anglican because I wanted to become a practicing Christian, but I lacked the knowledge of Christianity and the Bible, as well as the self-knowledge to make the decision I would make today about which church to join. If only fully self-aware, perfectly formed Christians were allowed anywhere, most churches, including RC ones would be empty. In any case, if one is an Anglican, conversion to something else isn't that big a deal. It's the choice to embrace orthodoxy that is the big deal, however imperfectly scrutinized.
The "via media" of the Anglican Church reminds me of my favorite "Aggie" joke (Texas A&M is the butt, always). Two Aggie pilots are coming in for a landing and are directed to a runway, but it doesn't look quite right. One says to the other,"Well, I believe that's the shortest runway I've ever seen." "Yup," says the other, "But ain't it wide."
Conversion to Christianity is an experience; joining a church is a decision.
Estiel: "such an enormous decision as conversion would call for scrutiny of motive, it would seem. Self-scrutiny, not just scrutiny of external factors."
So- is conversion a decision or an experience? My own experience and observation is that it is both. The RC church in fact, ensures that it is both. The extended discernment process with instruction and rites along the way make it both, and in every way, joining the RC church is made synonymous with conversion as a matter of process and sacrament.
If "switching churches" is all that is happening, then self-scrutiny is not necessary at all. But if the complaint is that not enough people really examine their motives for changing churches, I suggest that while that may be true, it is a matter of conscience for them, not something an outsider can really measure or judge. People in RCIA classes are there for many different reasons. Most converts or those who are to be received are there because the RC church is a more faithful embodiment of Christ's Church, if not *the* church. For them, the decision to join the Roman Catholic church is often wrenching on a personal level. When they short-hand their reasons for conversion by identifying authority, it seems a bit mean to assume that the decision is somehow superficial and lacking in "self-scrutiny."
bbmoe,
Given the history of the Church of England, from its origin to its present day, I think the "shorthand" of *authority* deserves a longer look. Sorry if you think that's mean. (I think that denying Catholics legal rights, or drawing and quartering Catholic priests, both modern and historical rejection of papal authority, is kind of mean.)
I said that whatever authority the C of E ever had, it still does. It's also true that whatever authority the Catholic Church has now, it has always had. Authority, or lack of it, has not changed. So what did change?
What is it about the Anglican acceptance of homosexuality or the ordination of women that would "change" its authority? Nothing. To put it another way, if one did not recognize the authority of the Pope before the Anglican church ordained women, why would they suddenly recognize it now? The only answer is that authority is not the real motive. Dissent is. Their origin is in their rejection of religious authority. They have not changed. To convert means to change. And they choose now what they chose then: dissent. This "shorthand" leaves out one fundamentally necessary step identified by the Church from the beginning because it was identified by Christ himself: repentance. It's necessary. He said so. Conversion from the Anglican to the Catholic Church has to be more--and quite other-- than dissent from current Anglican trends.
Experience vs choice: To be converted to Christianity is to come to know Christ. That is an experience of pure grace. It requires of us only our assent. Joining the Catholic Church is a decision one makes. It requires our own initiative.
It has struck me that the famous (or infamous, if you prefer) dissenters within the Church--people like Biden, Pelosi, Kennedy--but also less famous people like many bishops and priests--are all "cradle" Catholics. I guess the notable exception would be the Blairs. Most (all? who knows?) converts do not dissent. Only those who did not actively *choose* the Catholic Church, as one choice among many, without all the childhood emotional connotation attached to it. I think that's very relevant to understanding dissent and dissenters within the Church. They're perhaps trying to make a *decision* they have not yet actually made. One wishes for their sake that they would leave the Church in order to choose to return. Some do. They are called "re-verts," and like converts, they do not dissent from the authority of the Church's teaching. And they all go through an experience of repentance.
What I think is mean, or small and ungenerous and presumptuous, is that you think that Anglicans who convert don't do adequate self-scrutiny and may actually have a different understanding of authority than you do.
An individual may cite "authority" as his reason for finding more truth in Roman Catholicism with considerable justification, not the least from the Roman Catholic Church itself. Who are you to judge the adequacy of that? In any case, the definition of "authority"in the sense that you refer to historically is moot: the Pope is no longer competing with the Queen of England and the American Revolution took care of the rest.
The acceptance of papal authority through conversion is sufficient repudiation of any individual's previous rejection. In any case, holding individuals to account for wrongs committed by others is, to say the least, unethical. But if you are inclined to atone for the misdeeds of the Catholic Church, be my guest. Or perhaps you only feel it necessary to come clean if you're converting to another faith, then by being Roman Catholic you have assented to the correctness of the Inquisition and the burning of heretics. Let me toast you with my Bloody Mary.
With respect to conversion, coming to know Christ requires acceptance and obedience. Both are decisions, although the possibility of full communion is the gift of grace. If there were no will, no ability to choose, then there would be no need for Christ.
Estiel said: "I'm afraid authority is not the real issue, despite what it may *feel* like to converts."
I completely disagree with this statement. Authority IS the issue.
As an Anglican I could not finally pin anyone down as to where their ultimate authority came from.
For the Evangelicals they claimed Scripture - but who decided which books were the correct inspired ones for their Scripture? Who chose the Canon of Scripture?
Who interepreted their Scripture?
For the Anglo Catholics they answered these questions by asserting that the Catholic Church was the authority - yet they ignored Our Lord's appointment of Peter as its head!
Authority IS the issue. Any Church must have as its basis the only authority that matters - God!
There is only one Church that can trace its origin and its authority back to Our Blesssed Lord Himself - the Catholic Church.
Without this authority you end up with the absolute mess that is the present day Anglican Church.
And you end up with thousands of Protestant denominations and new ones appearing daily.
bbmoe,
I don't think there's any way I can say what I think without offending you. I won't try any more, as I am taking up way too much "comment space" as it is. For what it's worth (which is nothing, I'm sure), Queen Mary was enforcing English law, not Church law; likewise, the Inquisition was the creation of Spain's government, not the Catholic Church. Indeed, these are the kind of events encountered with a state religion--which was the very impetus for the creation of the Church of England--the elimination of any authority, including religious authority, outside the state.
Veritas,
It just seems a bit-- ironic?--to create a religion by the overthrow of authority and then look around a few centuries later and say, "Whoa. We have no authority." How would the English react if the U.S. now "discovered" that we have no monarch?
I don't presume to judge, nor do I call people such names as "mean", but neither can I remove Anglicanism from its historical context any more than Newman could. What I have done, however, is depart from adherence to the main theme of Father's post by answering comments, and I've also had too much to say. Present-day Protestants other than Anglicans usually express some measure of delight in the discovery of papal authority in Church history when they become Catholic. For them, raised in a Baptist-Methodist-etc. culture which doesn't delve into history and which is not connected to our government, it's as though, as Catholics, they become heirs to a treasury of 2,000 years of history. For Anglicans, it's different: they are members of a state religion, founded by the state, a big part of that state's history. They cannot make any such "discovery." It is offensive to point out that elephant in the room, however, and I will cease. But it seems likely that it's the moral embarrassment ensuing from that elephant that gave rise to such stuff as "via media" or "Anglo-Catholics" or "branch" theories. However, what the elephant leaves behind is even more offensive than the elephant, I'm sure.
Peace. Go with God. Believe what you will.
The definition of Catholicism and Evangelical Protestantism (initially, Puritanism) as "opposite" "extremes" is both ridiculous and enormously dangerous.
They may disagree a lot with each other, and they may both be demanding. But they are neither opposite nor extreme.
To define them as such and then attempt to steer some sort of middle course rapidly comes to involve rejecting, not just anything peculiar to either of them, but everything common to both of them.
You know, things like the Trinity, and the Virgin Birth, and the Empty Tomb, and the sanctity of life, and so on, and on, and on.
Very interesting post. We have translated into Spanish in http://infocatolica.com/blog/buhardilla.php/0909110328-la-via-media-catolica
Estiel: I don't understand a word of what you're saying. It seems to me that Anglicans assume their church has authority and then they really DO "discover" that it doesn't. When they look for authority and discover it isn't there after all, then they look elsewhere. Just because you didn't take that route, that doesn't mean it's not true for others.
My husband and I were talking on a similar vein to this post earlier tonight. He was saying that many Christians think they alone are right, and that they discount everyone else, but that we Catholics do the same to other Catholics. But I think that groups of Catholics disagree with each other but ultimately (if they are really Catholics) accept that the rest really ARE Catholics. Rich, poor, liberal, conservative, reactionary, foreign, whatever -- they're all Catholics. Some of us live it a lot better than others. We don't need a "via media" in the Church because Catholics think their own group is just the right "middle" way between all the other crazy Catholics!
Whether there CAN be a "via media" between Catholics and Protestants is another matter.
Dear Gail F,
I scoured my comments to look for anything I said that could be interpreted as "some Catholics aren't really Catholics" and I find not the slightest suggestion of it.
On the contrary, though I adhere totally to the Church's teaching *about* the Church in relation to other faiths (best expressed, I think, in Pope Benedict's Jesus Dominus, written before he became Pope), I also adhere to the ecumenism he expresses without reservation of any kind. I know Protestants who are so much closer to Christ than I, a Catholic, will ever be; they are better Christians than I am in many ways. They do this without the *advantages* of being a believing Catholic, having what we call "the fullness" of the truth. And they do it without the centralized authority that Catholics (especially converts and re-verts)know to be a blessing.
Baptist, Methodist, and Pentecostal protestants within my family do not know (and really don't care) much about the origin of their particular denomination. Anglicans are different, as I said, because their origin is a huge part of their country's history. I drew the analogy of (I will cut and paste here):
It just seems a bit-- ironic?--to create a religion by the overthrow of authority and then look around a few centuries later and say, "Whoa. We have no authority." How would the English react if the U.S. now "discovered" that we have no monarch?
I discussed briefly dissent within the Church, but I didn't say that one group is "more Catholic" than another.
Sometimes, when we dislike a person, we accuse them of all sorts of things they are not guilty of. In the same way, when we dislike something someone says, we claim they said OTHER things they did not say. Actually, I said nothing about "via media" at all, for which I apologized, because I departed from the post's topic.
"Anglicans are different, as I said, because their origin is a huge part of their country's history. I drew the analogy of (I will cut and paste here):
It just seems a bit-- ironic?--to create a religion by the overthrow of authority and then look around a few centuries later and say, "Whoa. We have no authority." How would the English react if the U.S. now "discovered" that we have no monarch?"
The Anglican church was based not on the overthrow of authority, but on the recognition of a different authority.
Apart from that, it's unreasonable to ask individuals, born in the faith or adopting it, five centuries later, to account for their personal change in attitude or point of view or in the movement of their own church to reject even more radical aspects of Biblical authority. More importantly, for Americans, there has never been an "authority" in any person, once the secular authority of the King was rejected at the time of the Revolution. As I said before, your point was made moot centuries ago.
"Apart from that..." But it's not.
"More importantly, for Americans, there has never been an "authority" in any person, once the secular authority of the King was rejected at the time of the Revolution." That's exactly what I said. Now please, the analogy, using your own syntax: for Anglicans, there has never been an "authority" in any person, once the eccesial authority of the Pope was rejected by their Reformation. My question was why are they surprised.
"your point was made moot centuries ago."
It wasn't made anything centuries ago, since it was made at all centuries ago.
I think this is enough, BBMOE. The comments are getting not just somewhat irrational but also a bit impolite around the edges, leaving me without a way to defend myself without becoming the same. I prefer to decline further discussion.
Post a Comment