THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 19976, 19 June 1928, Page 12

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

Sir, —A little steady thinking will, I am sure, convince Mr. C. E. Archibald that it is a mistake to imagine that the Christian world can be sharply divided into two camps—those who believe In Che doctrines and practices of the Roman Catholic Church, and those who do not. The really fundamental ■ Christian doctrines —the doctrines attirmed in the Apostles' creed and in the Nicene creed —are accepted by almost every Protestant Church, as well as by Anglicans and Roman Catholics, ■ and, as regards many practices, all branches of the Christian Church are in general agreement. The fact that there is a considerable amount of agreement in matters of doctrine and practice between the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches is so obvious • that it is a puzzle to me how anything in my previous letter Could be looked upon as a " revelation " by Mr. Archibald. May I remind Mr. Archibald that the Church of England does not " call itself Protestant." The word " Protestant " does not appear in the Prayer Book, which requires us to express belief in " the Holy Catholic Church " and in the " Catholic faith." The Church of England is both Protestant and Catholic. It is Catholic in its positive beliefs, Protestant in its negations—in its rejection of transubstantiation, and papal jurisdiction. Norman Burton. Sir, —It is somewhat remarkable to notice the very hazy ideas which exist in the minds of good and well-meaning .people regarding the true position of the Anglican Church. Your correspondent, Mr. C. E. Archibald, has certainly put the matter in a nutshell, so far as many English-speaking people are concerned. But the true aspect of the case seems to be quite hidden from many of our people —perhaps we are to blame. I have even heard Protestant ministers affirm that there is " very little difference between Church of England and Roman Catholic." But every careful reader and student, Anglican and Roman, knows full well that they are—and as long as Rome displays her existing standards, will be —very different. The average person—one does not blame him, since he has not been taught anything different —does not realise that the differences existing are far greater, immeasurably so, than the wearing of vestments or lighting of candles. These are merely trifles when compared with such matters as Papal infallibility, the doctrine that the traditions of the Church are of equal value with Holy Scripture, mariolatrv, the Romish "absolute " theory, that the Roman Church is the one and only true Church. There are other points which it would be well to think over. The Church of England is Catholic and Protestant—Catholic, in holding the truths of Christianity which are universally believed—and Protestant, in protesting, as we do, against error, and the special points oil Roman teaching which have been. mentioned. In one creed we express belief in " the Holy Catholic Church " —not Protestant. Why is this ? I take it, if we did abandon the word Catholic, it would leave the way open for Rome to claim, with sorao show of reason, that it alone was the Catholic Church. So many people are apparently fearful of Roman dominance. Their fears are groundless—for a system which, bv its teaching, so cramps freedom of thought, rannoT really progress. The idea of infallibility, and the existence of the " Index Expurgatorius." are glaring instances. I trust that your correspondent mav be able to realise the breadth of the difference Uetween even High Church Anglicans (such as the Bishop of London) and Roman Catholicism. Anglican".