CHRISTIAN REUNION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19102, 22 February 1924, Page 11

CHRISTIAN REUNION.

ARCHBISHOP AND THE POPE. OPINIONS OF DENOMINATIONAL LEADERS. ROMAN CATHOLIC VIEW. (From Oxis Own Correspondent.) LONDON, January 3. As was to be expected, the publication of the letter of the Archbishop of Canterbury regarding the conferences on the subject of reunion between the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Church has, brought forth a flood of comment. It will be recalled that the Archbishop spoke of three conferences at Malines—the last held a few weeks ago—which have taken place between Cardinal Mercier, Monsignor Batiffol, and the Abbe Hemmer on the one side, and on that of the Anglican, among others Bishop Gore and Dr Kidd, Warden of Keble College, Oxford. The organ of Roman Catholic opinion, the Universe, draws ’attention to an obviously weak point in the negotiations which have taken place. “It is significant, - ’says that journal, “that the name of no English Roman Catholic appears . . . and Cardinal Mercier was apparently unable to benefit by the counsel of those of his co-religionists who know the position at first hand. Similar conversations in Franco and Rome in 1896 took place in independence of English Catholic opinion; they ended later in the condemnation of Anglican Orders bv Pope Leo xra.” It is reported that Ulster opinion, both clerical and lay, in all denominations of Protestant Churches, is strongly condemnatory of the pourparlers with the Church of Rome. Any movement in the direction of Rome is looked on with unqualified misgivings, as it is regarded as certain that reunion could only be accomplished on terms that Rome would dictate. The Most Rev. Dr D’Arcy, Primate of All Ireland, who recently criticised the Anglo-Catholic movement in the English Church, in outspoken terms, in an interview at Armagh, declared that the conferences were held entirely without the knowledge of the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of Ireland. Cardinal Bourne was asked for an opinion but through illness was unable to comply with the request. Monsignor James Moyes, Canon Theologian of Westminster, has given what is stated to be the English Roman Catholic view of the matter; — “The letter of the Archbishop of Canterbury to the Archbishops of the Anglican Church gives a remarkable summary of the proceedings of certain informal conferences on reunion held at Malines between certain Anglicans and a group of Catholic divines under the presidency of Cardinal Mercier. The proceedings have not been published, but the Archbishop has given from the reports forwarded to him a singularly clear and candid statement of the actual position. The most important part of his pronouncement is that the position taken up by the Anglican members of the conference is that of the Anglican theologians of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Here the archbishop takes his stand upon perfectly well-known ground, which might be fairly described as the traditional Protestantism of the English nation. It is what the Bishop of Durham very aptly called the Esposito contemporanea of the Anglican formularies. From this position the archbishop frankly declares that he will neither weaken or change. Thus Cardinal Mercier and his friends, and the Vatican in the background, can have no bind of excuse if they harbour any illusions as to any possible reconcilation between this doctrinal position and traditional Catholicism as affirmed in the Councils of Florence, Trent, and the Vatican. The archbishop, with his eyes on the bulk of his co-religionists, and the prospects 'of reunion with the Nonconformist masses, is not likely lo recede from the ground he has chosen. It is unthinkable that the Vatican will disavow its councils and recede from it. The whole lesson learned Irom this facing of the facts only proves that when, in God’s own good time, reunion may be brought about, the causes at work will be something wider and deeper, and more slow- and sure than mere table talk at non-official conferences.” VIEWS OF WESLETANS. The following are other opinions expresent : Dr Dinsdale Young (of the Wesleyan Central Hall, Westminster): “Any steps towards unity of Christian purpose is one to receive the support of any Christian Church. Christian people, of whatever denomination, are beginning to see that matters of Church government, even questions of ritual, are purely secondary points in the one main object—the furtherance of Christian faith and ideals. There is, however, a long. toad to be traversed before unity of the churches can be accomplished, and the difficulties in the wav are many. Differences are fundamental.” Sir Robert Perks (leading lav member of the Wesleyan Church): “A union between ffie Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church would mean the break-un of the Anglican Church. It would smash the Church of England to pieces. She is already torn with dissension, and any such proposal of absorption—because it does not mean union, bdt absorption of the Church of England by the Catholic Church—will break her up. The Catholics will not reunite( on equal terms at any time. They say ‘We will take vou in and treat vou as prodigals returned.’ ”

CONGREGATTONALISTS’ OPINIONS. F- orlv ood (Congregations list pastor of the City Temple): “In mv ,'udgment, the archbishop has a perfect right to explore every possible avenue by which a better understanding, without sacrifice of principles, may be reached with Rome. The Lambeth appeal is to ‘all Christian People, and it would be absurd to exclude that Church which represents the most ancient traditions and comprises within her borders so great a part of the human race. Some sound things will doubtless come of it. But I should be surprised if Rome were found ready for any other *kind of ‘union’ than one of absorption. She is not given to compromise with Churches which do not acknowledge the supremacy of the Pope. Too hasty an approach to her would undoubtedly check, if not destrov. the drawing together of the Anglican Church and Complete union between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism is not yet visible on the horizon, but frank interchange of opinion and united action on great moral and spiritual issues ought not to be impossible, and would be all to tne good.” The Rev. S. M. Berry (secretary of the Congregational Union): '“The Churches are pledged by the very spirit of the Lambeth appeal to make all the approaches towards reunion that they can, but even the most fervid Protestant would not think of any successful outcome of the present negotiations. The obstacles are too numerous and two great,” INCAPABLE OF AN OPEN MIND. The Rev. A. W. Gough (Prebendary of St. Paul’s Cathedral and Low Church leader): “The mass of Church people, I am convinced, are strongly against this movement towards Rome. Our Church authorities to-day are completely out of touch with the general opinion oi Church people. They do not understand the feelings which will be aroused by the archbishop’s letter. The movement, if continued, will wreck the stability of the Church and will lead to serious disturbance. It is absurd to suggest that Rome has an open mind in these negotiations towards supposed unity, or will change its inflexible outlook. Rome will not budge one single inch from its own position; Rome will make no concessions; Rome is incapable of an open mind.” The Rev. Thoms? Nightingale (secretary to the National Free Church Council): “On the broad question of Church reunion I have alwavs felt that unity must begin' in sympathetic co-operation in all Christian objects rather than in corporate union. There are too many obstacles in the way of union. Rome will never give up its claims, which are completely unacceptable to religious thought in this country.” NATIONAL ASSEMBLY NOT CONSULTED. Sir Thomas Inskip, K.C., Solicitor-general, who represents the Diocese of Bristol in the House of Laity: “I see that the Archbishop of Canterbury says that he takes full responsibility, but I think it is a great mistake that he did not consult the National Assembly before he took such a step. It is in my opinion impossible for the Archbishop of Canterbury to take such a step without committing the Church. The announcement will not, I am confident, be received by the great majority of the people with approval, although, of course, the school of thought headed by Lord Halifax, an ex-president of the English Church Union, and the Bishop of Truro will receive it with favour. The great body of the laitv will receive it with strong disapproval. The fact that the Archbishop admits tnat it would have been futile to hold these conferences in public proves that The Archbishop says he hopes to speak on the matter in Convocation. I hold that Convocation is not* the proper jdace for this tq clsalt with—-

the National Assembly is the proper place, and they should have been informed of the proposals before.” THE BRITISH WEEKLY. Commenting upon the Archbishop of Canterbury’s letter as “the surprise of the Christmas holidays,” the British Weekly says: “Rome can yield nothing. Her demand is for full submission. As Father Woodlock has recently pointed out, there can be no surrender on dogma, nor will there be any diminution of the Papal claims. Now, as in past ages, the man or woman who desires reunion with Rome must enter her fold as Hugh Benson did, with the humility, obedience, trustfulness ot a little child. The British people, in their corporate capacity, were never less disposed for that submission. The name of Cardinal Mercier reminds them of the martyrdom of Belgium and of the neutrality maintained by the Vatican during the world war. Christendom does not look to Rome for moral leadership, and prelates who travel Homeward will soon find that they walk among burning ashes. Any real compliance would rend the Church of England from top to bottom.” VIEWS OF BISHOPS. The Bishop of Durham (Dr H. Hensley Henson): “Reunion with Rome cannot usefully be discussed until the present claims of the Papacy have been abandoned and the Church of England lias been franklv recognised. No authority from the bishops or Convocation has been given to the conference at Malines.” The Bishon of Hereford (Dr M. L. Smith): “No reunion of Christendom ignoring the Church of Rome can be regarded as adequate. It is easy to appeal to passion and prejudice in this matter among both Anglicans and Free Churchmen, but no calm and reasonable judgment would object to the carefully guarded conferences at Malines.” Bishop Welldon, Dean of Durham and former Bishop of Calcutta and Metropolitan of India; “I think reunion with the Church of Rome impossible. It moans complete submission. Hope of reunion lies with Eastern Churches and Reformed Churches in Great Britain and on the Continent. The Primate’s letter will prevent reunion with these Churches, not promote it with the Church of Rome.” The Bishop of Chelmsford (Dr F. S. G. Warman): “I am profoundly glad of any movement towards unity. We have all much to learn and something to sacrifice. Home unity must take precedence and the right spirit come first of all. Efforts must be made in all directions, but. truth is paramount. (Malines must not and need not hinder movements at home.” The Bishop of Bradford (Dr Perowne): “The (Primate’s) letter cannot be considered apart from the Lambeth. Appeal. Unless Home can accept the Scripture as the ultimate standard of faith, the Anglican Church cannot move nearer.” Bishop Ryle, Dean of Westminster and former Bishop of Exeter and Winchester: “1 appreciate the kindly feeling promoting private conversations, but unless the entire freedom of the Reformed Church of England be acknowledged and the validity of orders recognised, no basis exists for attending official negotiations with the Church of dome.” SECRET CONCLAVES. Captain J. W. D. Barron, secretary of the Church Association, gives what are pro bably the views of the Evangelical section of the Church of England: “The Archbishop of Canterbury’s letter came as a revelation, if not as a surprise, for one is now getting quite accustomed to the secret attempts that are being made to bring about reunion with Rome. Such revelations are very disconcerting, as leading to the belief that there is a sat purpose on the part of those in authority to accomplish such, no matter what the cost may be to the Evangelical section of the Church of England. It appears that the subject matters of the discussion are known to only a few favoured individuals, although the question of reunion with Rome is of mast vital importance to the whole of the members of the Church of’ England. Why should Dr Frere (a Mirfield monk) and Dr Gore, the founder of the Community of the Resurrection (or Mirfield Monks) be selected to represent the views of the Church of England when their sacerdotal and Homeward proclivities are so well known? “I respectfully submit that the archbishop has certainly done no good service to the cause of reunion of the Christian churches by his countenancing these secret conclaves, which cannot lead to any satisfatory solution, unless the Church of Rome is prenared to withdraw its claim to Papal infallibility and supremacy, its curses against the memtiers of the Anglican Church, its unscriprural doctrine, and its aspirations for temporal power; and the first questions to be answered are; How far is Rome prepared to go in this direction, and how far is the Church of England prepared to discredit her Thirty-nine Articles in order to secure such union? The absurdity of such attempts ■ii fusion cannot but be discerned by all ■ogically minded people. Rome, claiming as she does to be an infallible Church, cannot concede anything to the Protestant Church of England, and any concession made will have to be by the Church of England; this, to say the least, is preposterous. While not affirming themselves so infallible. Evangelical Churchmen stand upon the Thirtynine Articles of Religion, and from that position will not be moved, and the Church Association, representing as it does the Protestant majority of the Church of England, will, at whatever cost, resist any attempt which may be made to go hack to preReformation teaching.”