The New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. FRIDAY, AUGUST 27, 1897.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXV, Issue 17, 27 August 1897, Page 16

The New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. FRIDAY, AUGUST 27, 1897.

THE THEOLOGY OF TOE^RUSSIaTcHURcTT 5

OTWITHKTANDING the failure of the Archbishop of York's recent mission to the East, indent Anglicans still seem to cherish the hope of accomplishing some sort of reunion with the Russian Church. At the recent Jubilee festivities the Archbishop of Finland was present as representing the Russian Church and '•" " the Russian people, and many Anglicans, reading their own wishes into the Archbishop's visit, imagined tbat his real object in coming to England was to promoti the union of the Russian and Anglican Churches. He was accordingly met at the Victoria station, and what is described as *'an extremely unctuous andiflattering address' 1 was presented to him, which, after lauding the Russian Church "as the mightiest of all national churches, a Church which is honoured throughout the world as the inflexible upholder of the saving faith of our Redeemer as revealed in the Holy Scriptures," etc., concluded by praying that the two communions might be drawn more closely together. In view of these repeated and persistent attempts on the part of the Anglican body to secure recognition from or union

it

with Russia, it may be interesting to draw attention to some of the main features of Russian doctrine and see how far such a reunion is likely, or, indeed, is capable of being realised. This has been done with great clearness and ability in a series of articles by a writer in the London Tablet, and we fi\>|p avail ourselves of the valuable information which they contain. The articles confine themselves to an examination of those doctrines and practices which figure most prominently in Anglo-Roman controversy, such as transubstantiation, the Eucharistic sacrifice and devotion to the Blessed Virgin, and the writer has no difficulty in showing from the Russian and Oriental liturgies, as well as from catechisms and other books of instruction, how hopelessly at variance the Anglican and Russian Churches are, and how abortive must be every attempt at their fusion or reunion.

And first as to tran substantiation, the great mystery of the Holy Eucharist, which is, asSt. Thomas says, "the sacrament of unity." The Russian teaching on this matter is in perfect harmony with that of the Catholic Church. The Russian Catechism, examined and approved by the Holy Synod, and published by the command of the Tsar, has the following • — "Q: What is the Communion?" "A:* The Communion is a sacrament in which the believer, under the appearances, eateth the true Body and Blood of Christ unto life eternal." And on a later page, " What is the most important action in this part of the Liturgy ?" "A • The pronouncing the word which Jesus Christ spoke in instituting the sacrament : Take and eat. this is My Body • Drink ye all of this, this is My Blood of the New Testament. And then the invocation of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of the gifts, that is of the bread and wine which are offered." "Q : Why is this important ? A : Because at this very action the bread and wine are changed into the thc^true Body of Christ and into the true Blood of Christ." A later edition, published under the same authority and translated by the late Mr. Blackmore, has " changed or transubstantiated." And the ancient Eastern Liturgy bears still more striking testimony to the real objective presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. In the Blessing and Invocation of which the catechism speaks, the celebrant says : " Make this bread the glorious Body of Thy Christ. . . . and what is in this chalice the glorious' Blood of Thy Christ Changing by Thy Holy Spirit. . . . I believe that this is Th v y very all holy Body and this is Thy very glorious Blood. ' The use of such language could not be justified by any doctrine which falls short of the Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation. Here, then, is a fundamental point of variance between the two Churches. On the one side we have the doctrine of the Real Presence clearly and definitely sot forth in the authoritative documents of the Church and openly professed by all its members. On the other side we have only the hazy and indefinite belief of a certain school of advanced High Churchmen, while a considerable number of the bishops, the clergy, and the laity agree in denouncing even this vague and varying theory as altogether incompatible with the official formularies of the English Church. Turning now to the question as to whether or" not there is a real sacrifice in the Eucharist, we again find the ttu&sian Church bearing witness to thu dogmas of Catholic theology. In the opening prayers of the Mass of the faithful in the Slavonic liturgy the priest says : " Look upon me Thy sinful and unprofitable servant, and cleanse my soul and heart from all wayward thoughts, and make me fit, by the might of Thy Holy Spirit invested with grace of the priesthood, to stand at Thy holy table, and to consecrate in priestly wise Thy holy and most pure Body and Thy precious Blood. . . . For Thou, 0 Christ our God, art He that offereth and He that is offered, He that receiveth and He that is given." Precisely similar words are used in the other Eastern liturgies. And a crowning proof of the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist in the Russian Church is to be found in the fact that it is offered for the souls of the faithful departed as well as for the worshippers actually present. Thus in the Russian Missal we meet with this rubrical direction : •' But if it bo offered for the dead, the deacon, while he incenses, says the following Ektenia : ' 0 God, according to Thy great mercy, we pray Thee to hear and have mercy.' The Choir : ' Lord, have mercy ' (thrice). The Deacon : * Moreover, we pi\iy for the repose of the soul of the departed servant of God X.X., and for the forgiveness of all his sins, wilful or not wilful.' The Choir : 'Lord, have mercy' (thrice), There is nothing at all

corresponding to this in Anglican worship, and this furnishes yet another gap which must be bridged over before reunion can be thought of. Coming finally to the question of devotion to the Mother of God we find that this devotion is so warm and fervent in the Russian Church that even Catholic devotion seems dull and cold by comparison. We have space for only two brief extracts. In the Slavonic Liturgy the following remarkable commemoration of Our Lady follows soon after the consecration .— " Then at the mention of the Blessed Virgin, as especially commemorated, the choirs burst in with an anthem : <It is meet indeed to call thee Blessed, 0 Beipara, ever-blessed and all -immaculate, and mother of our God, more honourable than the cherubim and more glorious than the seraphim beyond compare, who, with unimpaired virginity, didst bear God the Word, we magnify thee as being truly the Mother of God.' " And in the Coptic Mass the priest incenses the Image of the Blessed Virgin thrice, and says the prayer • " Rejoice, 0 Mary, comely dove, who hast brought forth for us Gop the Word ! We salute thee with the Angel Gabriel • Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Rejoice 0 Virgin, true Queen ! Rejoice, the glory of our race ! Thou hast brought forth Emmanuel for us. 0 faithful advocate remember us before thy Son, Jesus Christ, that He may forgive us our sins." Even advanced Anglicans who have learned to practise some devotion to Mary themselves feel constrained to censure Catholic extravagance in the honour paid to the Blessed Virgin. What possible affinity can their Church have to the spirit of fervent devotion to Mary which breathes through all the Liturgies of the Eastern Church ?

We have now examined the teaching of the Russian Church on three important points over which there has been much controversy between England and Rome, and we have seen that the Russian Church gives cleai testimony to the truth of Catholic teaching on all those points. Whatever difference there may be between the two Churches on other matters, on these points Rome and Russia are at one. And though Anglican visitors to Russia may be received with all kindness, and their courtesies may be cordially reciprocated, it is clear that the Russian Church cannot unite with the Anglican body in real fellowship and communion until the Catholic doctrine on the Holy Eucharist, and Mass for the living and the dead, and devotion to the Blessed Mother of God, shall be accepted, not merely as the pious belief of a party, but as the official and authorised teaching of the English Church.