“The Root of All Difference”

New Zealand Tablet, Volume L, Issue 48, 6 December 1923, Page 21

“The Root of All Difference”

(By Rev. W. A. Spence, in the London Catholic Times.) Among the utterances of the recent “Anglo-Catholic .Congress” one of the most noteworthy, and the most interesting to Catholics, was the paper of Dr. F. J. Hall, Professor of Dogmatic Theology in the General Theological Seminary, New York, on “The Future of the Church.” It is interesting and useful, because it shows so clearly that (as the late Dr. Adrian Fortescue has put it) “the root of all difference between us and Anglicans” is the visible unity of the Church—not, as is sometimes said, the infallibility of the Pope. That this should be recognised is a matter of prime importance, because when it is recognised it will be clearly seen that the High Anglican and Catholic positions are irreconcilable. The difference is fundamental, and no compromise is possible. High Anglican Position. •’ The High Anglican position is based’ upon the theory of a visibly divided Church. All “Anglo-Catholics” hold that though the Church is one, and though unity is a mark of the Church, yet the one Church is divisible, as regards its outward unity, and as a matter of fact is divided, into three (at least) communions, A “Catholic” they consider to be one ho holds the doctrines common to these three parts, or, as they sometimes put it, one who holds and follows “the whole faith and practice of the Church, East and West.” Catholics, therefore, need not be, and in fact are not always, in communion with one another. They assume this, and, of course, to find this “Catholic consent” they have to make many other assumptions, but all depend on the primary supposition that the Church is outwardly divisible, and as a matter of fact is divided. Otherwise they could not, of course, hold the Church of England to be a part of the Catholic Church, since it is obviously not in communion with Rome, nor— as yet, at any rate—with the Orthodox Eastern Churches. Important to Bear in Mind When Dealing With Anglicans. It is this idea of the Church— one who has never had it a difficult one to conceivethat we have to bear in mind whenever we consider what Anglicans say or write about “reunion”; for instance, when Dr. Hall speaks of “Catholic reunion,” “reunion with the Papal See,” “formal reunion,” “the conditions, both Roman and ’ Anglican, which now prevent reunion.” “The reunion in which we are interested,” he says, “is the ending of denominations by the united allegaince of all Christians to the ancient Catholic Church; a common acceptance of its primitive faith, ministry, Eucharistic worship, and sacramental discipline.” This sounds well; but remember his theory of the Church, and note how he continues: “and a renewal

between Catholic bodies of full intercommunion and coordination in (Ecumenical concerns.” (Italics mine.) What Dr. Hall and his fellow-Anglicans mean by “Catholic reunion” is the restoration of. intercommunion among the divided parts of the one Catholic Church (so they would put it), and, if possible, the bringing into this reunited Church of other Christian bodies at present separated from all the parts. What, therefore, they are really looking for is the acceptance of the High Anglican position by “all who profess and pall themselves Christians.” Anglicans’ Inability to Understand Catholic Claims. That position depends on the theory of a divisible and divided Church. That theory accounts for Anglicans’ inability to understand Catholic claims; it invalidates all their arguments against them; it vitiates all their concessions, and renders vain all their appeals. It is that theory which accounts for their vague notion of jurisdiction and their unreal idea of authority; it underlies their hostility to “Vaticanism.” If they repudiate it they must either claim that “the Anglican Communion” is itself the one true Church; or acknowledge themselves outside that Church. Yet so long as they adhere to it their hopes of union with the Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman Church are vain, and their seeming advances delusive. (It is necessary to remember this when considering pronouncements bearing .on the subject of “reunion,” whether from Lambeth, Fulham, or the Albert Hall.) Unreasonable and Heretical. For no faithful Catholic can possibly admit, and no prudent Catholic would use language which seems to imply, that the theory of a divided Church is tenable. To the Catholic that theory is unreasonable and heretical. It is unreasonable, because it stultifies the very raison d’etre of the Church, which is meant to be a teaching Church, and renders it unrecognisable. Dr. Adrian Fortescue, in his most valuable pamphlet entitled The Early Papacy— a pamphlet which, it is to be feared, is not so widely read as it should be—wrote with his usual clearness: “The ' visible unity of the Church of Christ is the root of all our belief, after the existence of God, the claim of Christ as our teacher, the fact that Christ did found a Church. All else (including the Papacy) we believe because the Church of Christ teaches it, relying on His promises to her. But we cannot get any further towards knowing what the Church teaches till we know what the Church is. The whole principle of believing the teaching of the Church goes, if we admit the-possibility that the Church may consist pf a group of separate communions, all teaching something different. In this case you have to take the greatest common measure of various churches picked out arbitrarily.” (Pp. 44, 45.) 4 An Article of Faith. But more : to admit the theory of a divided Church Mould be to allow that Christ’s purpose for His Church has been frustrated, that His prayer for her has been in ™ n, 1 and that His promise has failed-that the gates of Dell have prevailed. The visible and indefectible unity of the Church w an article of faith, and when Ancdmans assert that as a matter of fact they do share the one Faith with us they are mistaken: they do 'not hold what we believe as to the unity of the Church; they do not mean what we ; mean by the words “I believe One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” ' wr\ a I( : tter fr l om ,the Holy Office—an answer to the English Bishops—dated September 16, 1864, the following principles were laid down: . & ■ 1 That , the theory that Christendom or the Christian Church consists of three parts, the Roman, the Greek, and the Anglican, is a heresy overthrowing the nature of unity and the Divine constitution of the Church. , j 1 , . 2 : a * t .° u * lite in l an association of prayer with those who ho!d this theory is unlawful, inasmuch as it is an implicit adhesion to heresy, and to an intention stained with heresy. (Quoted from England and Christendom. , Cardinal Manning, pp. 140, 141.) ’ * KnlJnffi T"’ in ,November. 1865, in an answer by the Holy Office to an address from 198 clergymen of the Church of England, it was declared: , ‘vJ ’ That the unity of the Church is absolute and indivisible ;l

- “ -vv.w'-r ' * r ... ■ ->**■ >,'• ■ . . u ■_ t *. - i • - • ■;•.>" ?-- -.v,• • and that , the Church has never lost its unity, nor for so much as a moment of time ever can. ' There is, therefore, , both de jure and de facto, only one Church; one by a numerical and exclusive unity. (Op. cit., p. 143.) - V Cardinal -.Manning’s Affirmation. : ; . .In the course of his comments on these answers the * great Cardinal , affirmed: “It is a dogma of faith that 4 there is no other name under Heaven given; among men whereby we must saved.’ Salvation through the Name of Jesus is an - absolute and exclusive condition. . . In ■like manner, that there is ‘ one fold under one Shepherd,’ and that the one fold is undivided and indivisible, is a dogma as divine and as inflexible a© the unity of the Saving Name and the necessity of Baptism. f . . In the - OUT Law it was written, ‘ Cursed be he that removeth his neighbor’s landmarks.’ And what is the visible unity of the Church but the landmark which God has set up to bound the Fold of Salvation? , They who deny its. numerical and, indivisible unity remove the landmark of God. They who teach that the Anglican separation and the Greek schism are parts of the .Catholic Church violate a dogma of faith, destroy the boundaries of truth and falsehood, and make the blind to wander ,out of the way.” ■(Op. cit., pp. 162, 163.) I■’ Recognition of the Anglican Theory Impossible. It is, therefore, quite impossible that “Rome” should ever make any concessions which would imply, or even seem to imply, a recognition of the Anglican theory of the Church. “We cannot predict,” says Dr, Hall, “by what specific arrangements the requirements of safe and wholesome reunion will be met,. Presumably the measures taken will consist largely of adjustments of existing ini' stitutions.” It may quite-safely be predicted that “Rome” V will never have any share in any-arrangements, nor consent to any measures, which would imply the admission of the 'v divisibility of the Church. Yet without such admission the . present Anglican. idea of “reunion” cannot be realised. And, of course, it never can be realised. At present many sincere Anglicans, , men- with Catholic sympathies, who earnestly desire union with the Catholic Church and see the urgent necessity of it, if any portion of the Anglican separation is to be saved from Modernism and Humanism, are seeking it in the wrong way, and are expecting impossibilities, because they do not perceive “the root of all difference” between themselves and true Catholics, and do not recognise the' heretical nature of their theory of the Church, which falsifies their position and blinds them to the only road to Catholicity. To that goal the “AngloCatholic” way can never lead its followers, but there are those now treading it with growing discomfort who, we cannot , but hope, are willing to reckon with the truth at all costs, when it is brought home to them. The “AngloCatholic” effort will not justify tl*e fears of many Anglicans who are not of it, nor fulfil the hopes of those Catholics who still expect it to lead ,to “corporate reunion” pdbut that is not to say that many of those who are now held by it will not perceive its delusiveness and, escape from it. Need of Dwelling on the Plain Truth. It is, therefore, for us to keep the plain truth steadily before their eyes (and, indeed, before our own) and to beseech insistently for them the grace which alone will enable them to see it. We can all make our own, in the spirit in which they were written, and reaffirm with conviction, Dr. Hall’s last words: “We must constantly resort to prayer.”