77 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
one visible head. It is reducible to three points: unity of faith, government, and worship. The faithful are subject to one teaching and ruling authority, and partake of the same sacraments and forms of worship. Roman Catholics maintain that the Founder of Christianity wished the members of his Church to be united in the one faith or belief delivered in first instance to the apostles whom he sent to teach all nations. It was, furthermore, his intention that this doctrinal unity should be maintained in the Church through all subsequent generations by the authority of the ‘‘ Ecclesia docens,”’ authority which is vested in the bishops who are successors of the apostles, and particularly in the bishop of Rome, who is the center of all unity, and who, as the successor of Peter, inherits, in his official capacity, the prerogatives implied in the metaphor of the foundation rock (Matt. xvi. 18) and in other familiar passages of the New Testament. To this supreme and infallible teaching authority, which secures unity of belief, is united also, according to the will of the Founder, and vested likewise in the bishops and pope, supreme authority to rule the faithful in all things pertaining to salvation, whence results unity of direction or government, and also unity of worship, since the latter flows logically from the other two. This cultural unity refers chiefly to the sacrifice of the mass and the use of the sacramental system. The faithful are united in the use of the same sacraments because they all accept the Church’s teaching relative to their divine institution and efficacy. That the Roman Catholic Church possesses this threefold unity in a far greater degree than any other body of Christian believers can hardly be disputed, and it is scarcely less evident that it is due to the traditional recognition by Roman Catholics that the see of Rome is the one center of unity in the Christian world. Church union, therefore, from the Roman Catholic standpoint entails necessarily this unqualified recognition as one of the fundamental doctrinal principles concerning which no compromise is possible. Without acknowledgment of the supreme authority of the Roman see no unification with dissident Christian communions can be seriously entertained. Historically, this principle was formulated as early as the second century by St. Trenzus, who, though of Asiatic origin, asserts plainly the primatial rights of the Roman see “ with which, because of its preeminence, all other churches must agree’ (Har., IIL, iii. 2).
Consistently with this principle, rejection of the teaching authority of the Roman see in doctrinal matters is ultimately construed as heresy, while revolt against her ruling authority constitutes ecclesiastical schism. The traditional concept of the Church from the beginning is that of a great visible organization destined to be universal—a vast body of which Christ is the head. But a visible Church should have also a visible head, and, according to Roman Catholic belief, the prerogatives that this implies were bestowed by the Founder on Peter-and his suecessors. In the controversies incidental to the heresies and schisms that marked the early cen-
I. Unity
of Faith, Government, and Worship
Requisite.
Union of the Churches
turies of Christianity the dissenting bishops and their followers were constantly blamed by the orthodox Fathers for disrupting the unity of the Church, and when they definitely withdrew or were
cast out, they were looked upon as 2. Position branches lopped off from the parent
Regarding tree and deprived of its life-giving Non-Roman power. Such, indeed, has been the
Commun- constant attitude of the Roman Cath-
ions. olic Church in all subsequent ages toward seceding sects or nations. She sincerely deplores the fact that Christendom is so hopelessly divided against itself, and in her liturgy she prays constantly for unity, continuing the prayer of her divine Founder that all his followers be one in him. But at the same time, this muchdesired unity must be such as Christ himself would have it—a unity the conditions of which must be submitted to her as judge, since she believes herself to be the divinely appointed custodian of his doctrine, the authentic interpreter of his will. If she shows herself rigid and uncompromising, it is because she feels the heavy responsibility of her divine mission. She longs to gather the scattered elements of Christendom under her wings, but however precious and desirable church unity may be, she does not deem herself free to accept it under conditions which in her esteem entail a sacrifice of principle or betrayal of her sacred trust. In matters pertaining to ecclesiastical discipline outside the domain of faith and morals, she is willing to make all reasonable concessions to dissident communions desiring to reenter the fold, but as regards the essential principles above stated she considers compromise to be impossible. That the efforts made in the past, notably in the ecumenical councils of Lyons (1274) and Florence (1438-45), to restore union with the Greek Church were not permanently successful is to be deplored, but Roman Catholics are confident that the impartial historian of these epochs will not make the Church of Rome responsible for the failure. The earnest desire and hope of the Church for Christian unity, as also the conditions under which she considers it possible of realization, are ably and fully set forth by the late Pope Leo XIII. in his encyclical letters ‘“‘ Preclara Gratulationis Publicze’”’ on the Reunion of Christendom (June 20, 1894) and ‘‘ Satis Cognitum ”’ on Church Unity (June 20, 1896). James F’. Driscout.
V. Supplement: The question of the union of churches involves three points: (1) union of those churches which acknowledge the historic episcopacy, as the Greek, Roman, Anglican and Protestant Episcopal, and Orthodox Catholic; (2) union of those churches which do not base the validity of ordination on the historic episcopacy; (3) ultimate union of these two great classes in one.
In the first class, union is conditioned, first, by an adjustment between the Greek and the Roman churches by differences centering on the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, on the infallibility of the bishop of Rome, and on the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary. The question concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit may be solved either by the Roman Church returning to the earlier ecumenical position which
Union of the Churches Union, Ecclesiastical
does not teach the double procession, but which arose in the West in the ninth century, or by a restatement of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son instead of from the Father and the Son, or the Greek and Roman churches may agree on a double mission of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, leaving the inner-trinitarian process undefined as in the Nicene Creed. The Greek Church would also have to come to an understanding with the Nestorians, Armenians, Jacobites, and Copts. Secondly, the Anglican Church and its daughters, and the Old (Orthodox) Catholic bodies as well as the Greek will have to reconcile themselves to the supremacy of the pope and the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, unless, indeed, in both of these instances the Roman Church recedes from her unique position on these questions.
In churches of the second class, union is actually in process of realization. Since the great majority of these churches accept the first three positions of the ‘ Quadrilateral,” there is no fundamental impediment to their ultimately coming together. A union is therefore possible either by voluntary association for the prosecution of particular interests, as Bible and Tract Societies, Young Men’s and Young Women’s Christian Associations, and worldwide missionary conferences, in which even the first class may heartily cooperate. There may also be federated union (which is indeed taking place) first among churches having the same general source and name, as Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, where the branches become reunited to the parent stock, or where the religious sympathies are closest and the common spirit and aims are more nearly identical. In case, however, the doctrinal differences prevent the sort of union contemplated in the “ Quadrilateral,” the basis would have to be broadened so as to include Jewish congregations, Unitarians, Universalists, and Independents, and this might be defined by the general religious aim and the conduct of life. To many persons the actual difficulties confronting this class of religious communions seem not unsurmountable. This would require not necessarily uniformity of external organization, or abolition of denominations, but comprehension, each emphasizing the distinctive content of its faith. The problem presented by vested interests, aS missionary societies, publishing-houses, and denominational colleges, is susceptible of satisfactory adjustment.
The union of the first and third classes offers a different problem. From the Anglican side a solution appeared in sight about 300 years ago. At that time:
“The Church of England recognized in various ways, directly or indirectly, the validity of Presbyterian ordination, and held communion with Lutheran and Calvinistie Churches on the Continent from the Reformation down to the Restoration in 1662, when the Ordinal was introduced in its present form.
“ Archbishop Cranmer, the greatest Anglical liturgist, called Martin Butzer, a mediator between the Lutheran and the Swiss Reformers, from Strasburg to the chair of systematic theology in Cambridge, and Peter Martyr, a strict Calvinist, in the same capacity, to the University of Oxford, and consulted them freely in the preparation of the Articles of Re-
ligion and the Book of Common Prayer. The Elizabethan bishops, who, during their exile under Queen Mary. had