THE ANGLO-CATHOLIC- MOVEMENT

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 85, 9 January 1928, Page 10

THE ANGLO-CATHOLIC- MOVEMENT

Sir,—l beg io express my appreciation and thanks for the clear and candid explanation of matter pertaining to this movement by your correspondent, “A Presbyterian Minister.” There is not a shadow of a doubt that, the true reformers in tho English Church to-day aro in sympathy with the Protestant bodies, whose progenitors seceded in the past from that Church to fulfil (more or less) the spirit of private interprets lion. Whatever denomination we belong to. we are not dissenters, as we were termed in. opprobrium in the past. It is recognised throughout Christendom that we dissent nothing from Bible truths enunciated by early Christian Bishops—good Bishops Ridley and Latimer, for instance. Your correspondent refers to Nonconformist Churches as "forming the best moral assets of the Empire.” I heartily agree. He could have added, yea, the salt of the earth, but we are still far from the bond of perfectness; the salt may have lost its savour, even amongst the leaders of Protestant thought and activity. Hence the desideratum of a new Reformation, based ou an earnest desire to close the ranks by tho term of equality, liberty, and fraternity in 'Spirit, to shake off tho Laodicean clement, of neither cold hot, by real thirst for the "reigp of rig nteor.sness and Aea, verily; to draw nearer to God—l am, etc.. W.M.F. January 5. Sir —I was much hurt and distressed bv a’ letter that appeared in your issue of yesterday above the signature of “Presbyterian Minister.” and in reply to the latter I would merely try to point out to him, in Christian, charity (of which there appears little in his letter), .his mistaken ideas concerning a large

part of the Church of England, viz., the Anglo-Catholics. The first jar I received upon reading his letter was the phrase he employs in regard to the Church of England: “That institution.” Now, no matter to what party any Anglican belongs, he believes that the Church was founded by Christ Himself and therefore he detests the cold legal term “institution” as meaning a man-made body. Christ called us His Church; that name satisfies us.

The second point he raises shows a deplorable lack of information: “That institution does not stand for unity and uniformity.” Does “Presbyterian Minister” know that in many Anglican churches a prayer for internal unity is offered at least once each Sunday? Thirdly, he states that the "arrogant and aggressive Anglo-Catholic party hankers after union with Churches whose seats are in Italy or in Russia.” “Presbyterian Minister” must be very ignorant of our reasons for wishing for union with these Churches, or else is indirectly slurring us with Bolshevism or something of the sort. Of course, even the most uninformed Anglican will tell him that the Church sees more likely hopes of success for the reunion of Christendom if she unites firstly with those Churches who have the same orders as herself, viz., bishops, priests, and deacons

It is quite evident that "Presbyterian Minister’ adheres to the Pauline construction of Christianity by his cursory description of the sacerdotal system. It would seem that he objects to ceremonies. But surely we are deceived if we think thus, for does not he in the next paragraph of his letter take as an aid to emphasis of one of his statements a series of three ceremonies: “The King, on his bended knees, laid his right hand upon the Bible”; and later, “The King kissed the Book”? Surely we were mistaken if we thought that the reverend Presbyterian divine abhorred ceremony. (I note that he even calls the coronation service, the coronation ceremony.) Commenting on the next paragraph of his letter, I would just say that:— (1) “Presbyterian Minister” must remember that the Church of England is nothing if not Catholic, for she was Catholic long before she was Protestant.

(2) The doctrine of purgatory is held by a very negligible few in the Church of England. (3) The three branches of the Catholic Church (of which the Presbyterian Church is not one) assures us of the validity of Seven Sacraments, viz., holy baptism, confirmation, holy communion, holy orders, holy unction, holy matrimony, and penance. (4) Transnbstantiation is not upheld by the majority of Anglo-Catholics, but the doctrine of the Real Presence is believed in.

(5) The phrase, “Sacrifice of Masses,” was not meant to prohibit the sacrifice of the Mass, but to prevent the celebration of Masses of the Dead in return for money. (6) Referring to the section of the homily, which “Presbyterian Minister” quotes, I would point out that the homily does not specifically forbid the -priestly ministrations, for if it did, why does she relegate special functions to her orders? (7) Those Anglicans who repudiate the name of Protestant are not known, I think, to take the name of Roman Catholic. As the term “Anglo-Catholic” signifies, they are still members of the English Church.

(8) The Anglo-Catholics do not wish to assimilate Roman Catholic doctrine simply because it is Roman Catholic. Their aim is a return to primitive Christianity—which aim, thank God, they are slowly but surely realising. (9) TIIO Nonconformists do. of a truth, present a sad case to us. In our eyes (i.e., in the eyes of the whole Catholic Church) they have cast off some of the very fundamentals of Christianity.. (10) Again, in his second last paragraph, your correspondent refers to the arrogance and aggressiveness of the -Anglo-Catholic party, and triumphantly asserts that many clever men have taken arms against us. Does he remember that among the early Christians there could be named but one brainy man, save the Founder, St. Paul? (11) Of course, seeing that “Presbyterian Minister” has been so interested in our new “Prayer Book Measure” for the last ten years, it is quite within our rights to assume that he has prayed earnestly for that length of time for the bishops who would be guided by the Holy Spirit of God, but v who ‘.‘in their folly” presented such, a book. We shall not assert, but we think that he may be among those who started to think seriously of. the matter three months ago. But if he did pray for a’l those interested in tho promotion of the book, is it not rank presumption for him to speak of the “follv” of those men for whom lie has. with millions of other people, repeatedly asked the wisdom of God? If he has not prayed about the matter at all, then he, who has not even helped the bishops by his prayers, should not be the one to criticise. In summing up, I beg to say that the two phrases, “No Popery” and “No treachery,” are synonymous in “Presbyterian Minister’s” case. And in conclusion, I beg to state than an Anarchy which can fill a church with more men than women, turn miners out of bed at 4.30 a.m. to attend the communion service, and can fill their churches at all other services of the day; and, to give a local example, can staff, as they are going to do, a hospital such as St. George’s, Christchurch, is one worth helping. I read that the Baptist Union in the Old Country had sent a telegram to the Archbishop of Canterbury, sympathising with the bishops in their difficulty, and stating that prayers would he offered in all Baptist churches on the following Sunday. This was a Christian act, which was much appreciated.— I am, etc., ANGLO-CATHOLIC. Wellington, January 6. Sir,—At the present time there are many who, although they are not members of the Church of England, are wishing to set her in order. But surely few have exceeded the presumption and “arrogance” (to use a word which your correspondent is so free with) of “Presbyterian Minister.” He does, no less than accuse the aged Archbishop of Canterbury, the revered head of the historic Church of England and the valued counsellor of the whole Anglican Communion throughout the world, of treachery to the high trust bequeathed to him. With him he includes the whole bench of bishops and charges them with dishonesty. It may be well to note that the letter of this protagonist of Protestanism with its bitter and prejudiced invective, with its careless aud colossal calumny, is dated December 21, the eve, so to speak, of Christinas. This festival is generally associated with ipeaco and goodwill towards men. You, sir, showed consideration to the fitness of times and seasons so markedly alien from your correspondent—a Christian minister in withholding this ill-timed ebulition to another season. The letter is so full of misleading declaration that it is difficult to limit a criticism to the allowance of your generous columns. Many egregious, errors must be left unnoticed. You will perhaps let me get to work with some. The fundamental error of the letter is the comparison of the Church of England with European IGth aud 17th century Protestanism. While we acknowledge that the Church of England is a relormed church and Protestant insofar as it repudiates the jurisdiction of the Papacy, we proudly point to the Prayer Book as maintaining that the Reformation made no break 111 the historic church of the English people. The church of the present Archbishop is one with the Church of St. Augustine, Theodore, Anselm and the Martyrs Thomas and Laud. Your correspondent is wauling to pull down the Church of England to the level of modern ProtesHow much does your correspondent know of the work of the Anglo-Catholic movement in England ? Surely strangely little or he would not vilify a body of people which, numbering amongst its leaders most of the eminent scholars in England, has worked its way iuto the life of the nation as no other body has done for years. Its earnest evangel aud its sane social gospel are the outstanding features of the Christian lite in England to-day. To it almost alone is due the pulsating energy of the home «i>urch. ..Your correspondent has. preserved for

nearly thirty years 156 pases of Sir William Vernon Harcom tpuinorting io, reveal of & P nd aDd It Pr had been weU had he preserved the 565 pages of the [< l it n tion of Hie charges by tne Rev. Malcolm i Coll DD . a name the sound of which must appeal to a Presbyterian mmiS4nd what can "Presbyterian MinisteF’ mean by the statement that the Aren bishop and bishops did not consult the congregation in the matter of the new Braver Book. Perhaps at no time in the history of the Church have the had such a constitiWonal ,O the s e XTup n rfth? National Assembly. Surely he should know that the K’s'S the conjoint professio affairs PreS^i: r X Sm The I Church o of Fngland J ’in <i?£ r &^ a X a ?alW e imr to ’ e pra°cr CO ßook 0° 1927 S 1 bffl amongst her numw .m ffew-raised of the Church not a their v ° iceb lwa P ca pable of making, a party .is always p of tbelr noise wa?' heard in the House of Commons X.“ , to -<. SSt b •«T‘, kJitimate expression- of the mind of the C But'for the rest may I ask. “Presby- ’,, ri (lm HVhtt/thnt freedom and liberty CHURCH OF hNGLAbiD MINISTER. . January 6.