RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
‘Orthodox Catholic Church Psychotherapy
“T. We hold firmly to the ancient ecclesiastical rule formulated by Vincent of Lerins, ‘Id teneamus quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est; hoc etenim vere proprieque catholicum.’
“‘We therefore hold fast to the faith of the Ancient Church as expressed in the Ecumenical Creeds, and in the universally accepted dogmatic decisions of the Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church of the first one thousand years.
“II. We reject as opposed to the Faith of the Ancient Church, and destructive of its primitive constitution, the Vatican Decrees of July 18, 1870, concerning the infallibility and the universal episcopate or the ecclesiastical omnipotence of the Pope of Rome. But this does not hinder us from recognizing the historical primacy attributed by various Ecumenical Councils, and Fathers of the early Church, to the Bishop of Rome as primus inter pares, with the consent of the entire Church of the first one thousand years.
“TIT. We reject also as not founded on Holy Scripture, and on the traditions of the first centuries, the declaration of Pius IX. in the year 1854, concerning the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
“TV. So also respecting the other dogmatic decrees issued by the Bishops of Rome in later times, viz., the Bulls ‘ Unigenitus’ and ‘Auctorem fidei,’ the ‘Syllabus of 1864’ and the like pronouncements, we reject them so far as they are opposed to the teaching of the early Church, and do not therefore regard them as authoritative. Furthermore, we renew all the solemn protests which, in times past, the Ancient Catholic Church of Holland has made against Rome.
“V. We do not accept the Council of Trent in its decisions concerning discipline; and its doctrinal definitions we accept only in so far as they agree with the teaching of the early Church.
“VI. Since the Holy Eucharist has always formed the central act in the divine service of the Catholic Church, we deem it our duty to declare that we hold firmly, and with all sincerity, the ancient Catholic faith concerning the Sacrament of the Altar, in which we believe that we truly receive the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ himself, under the forms of bread and wine.
“The celebration of the Eucharist in the Church isnot a constant repetition or renewal of that atoning sacrifice which Christ offered once for all upon the Cross, but its sacrificial character consists in this, that it is a perpetual memorial of that sacrifice, and a real representation on Earth of that one offering of Christ for the salvation of redeemed mankind, which, according to Heb. ix. 11-12, is continually presented by Christ in Heaven, where he now appears for us in the presence of God (Heb. ix. 24). While this is truly the nature of the Eucharist in its relation to that one sacrifice of Christ, it is, at the same time, a holy sacrificial feast in which the faithful, receiving the Body and Blood of Christ, have communion one with another (I Cor. x. 17).
“VII. We trust that, through the efforts of theologians, a way may be found, while,holding fast to the Faith of the Undivided Church, to reconcile the differences which have arisen since the divisions. We exhort the clergy under our charge, both in their sermons and in other religious instruction, to emphasize chiefly those essential truths of the Christian Faith which the ecclesiastically separated confessions hold in common; in dealing with existing differences, to avoid carefully the offending against truth and love; and both by precept and example to exhort members of our congregations to treat those who differ from them in belief in such a manner that they will truly exhibit the spirit of Jesus Christ who is the Savior of us all.
“VIII. We believe that it is by holding firmly to the teaching of Jesus Christ, while rejecting all errors which through the frailty of men have been mingled with it, and also all ecclesiastical abuses and hierarchical ambitions, that we shall do most to counteract the unbelief and the religious indifference which are the sorest evils of our times.
“Given at Utrecht September 24, 1889.”
Ernest C. MARGRANDER.
PSYCHOTHERAPY AND CHRISTIAN SCI- ENCE:* Two systems which, both seeking to cure disease by mental healing, possess, at least superficially, points in common. For the better elucida-
* Statement from the Christian Science standpoint.
tion of the relation between the two, the following should be read in connection with PsycHOTHERAPY, § 6. It is admitted, and it must so be understood by the reader, that this emendation is from the standpoint of a Christian Science practitioner; and it must also be understood that the theology and the healing of Christian Science are inseparable—in other words, it is the religious activity of the Christian Scientist, regenerating and transforming the mental, moral, and spiritual state of practitioner and patient, that brings physical healing. Christian Science, therefore, is a system which treats a diseased condition successfully, because it makes a whole man (cf. definition and derivation of the word “health ’’ in the Stgndard Dictionary). Briefly, the therapeutics of Christian Science (see ScIENCE, CurRIsTIAN, I., 1, § 6) may be said to be set forth in the following passage from Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, p. 138: ‘ Jesus established in the Christian era the precedent for all Christianity, theology, and healing. Christians are under as direct orders now, as they were then, to be Christlike, to possess the Christ-spirit, to follow the Christexample, and to heal the sick as well as the sinning. It is easier for Christianity to cast out sickness than sin, for the sick are more willing to part with pain than are sinners to give up the sinful, so-called pleasure of the senses. The Christian can prove this to-day as readily as it was proved centuries ago. Our Master said to every follower: ‘Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature! . . . Heal the sick! . . . Love thy neighbor as thyself!’ It was this theology of Jesus which healed the sick and the sinning. It is his theology in this book and the spiritual meaning of this theology, which heals the sick and causes the wicked to ‘ forsake his way, and the unrighteous man _ his thoughts.’ ”’ Lack of space prevents amplification of the statement that the theology and the healing of Christian Science are one, but if the earnest inquirer will accept the scriptural accounts of healing as being true, and will conform his mental attitude, reading, and study to the endeavor of proving, and not of disproving, these statements, he will get an insight into the methods by which the healing works of Jesus and others were accomplished, and understand why Mrs. Eddy refers to such works, no matter in what century they are done, as mind-healing. As an aid and incentive to further research the student is directed to the following definitions from the Standard Dictionary: “ Christian. Relating to or derived from Christ or his doctrines.” ‘‘ Science. Knowledge gained or verified by exact observation and correct thinking, especially as methodically formulated and arranged in a rational system.’ “Theology. The branch of theological science that treats of God, etc.’”’ “Theological Science. The branch of science that treats of God and the relations of God and man.” (Cf. also the word “ soteriology,”’ appropriated by both materia medica and scholastic theology, but which explains Christian Science as Christ Jesus exemplified its true meaning, i.e., the science of delivering.) No Christian can doubt that the relation of God to man is that of a deliverer from all evil, including the evil of disease; nor can the Christian doubt that Christ Jesus brought to
Rentoul Vos