Reunion All Around

The above title is stolen from a satirical essay written in 1914 by the late great Monsignor Ronald Knox.

REUNION ALL ROUND

OR JAEL'S HAMMER LAID ASIDE, AND THE MILK
OF HUMAN KINDNESS BEATEN UP INTO BUTTER
AND SERVED IN A LORDLY DISH

Being a Plea for the Inclusion within the Church of England of all Mahometans, Jews, Buddhists, Brahmins, Papists and Atheists, submitted to the consideration of the British Public

It is now generally conceded, that those differences, which were once held to divide the Christian sects from one another, (as whether or not Confirmation were a necessary ordinance of the Church), can no longer be thought to place any obstacle against unity and charity between Christians; rather, the more of them we find to exist, the more laudable a thing it is that Christian men should stomach, now and again, these uneasy scruples, and worship together for all the world as if they had never existed. There is no progress in Humanity, without the surmounting of obstacles; thus, we are all now agreed that Satan, far from meaning any harm to our Race when he brought sin into the world, was most excellently disposed towards us, and desired nothing better than that we, having some good stout sins to overcome, should attain an eventful and exciting sort of virtue, instead of languishing for ever in that state of respectable innocence, which is so little creditable to the angels, who alone practice it.

Monsignor Knox had endless fun with further suggestions, including the proposal for Universal Bigamy. Of course as I noted in an earlier post, the appalling problem which satirists face is the fact that so-called "real life" instantly outstrips their most preposterous suggestions. Not even Father Knox imagined abominations such as gay marriage, much less that in 2008 one Anglican clergyman would be presiding over the "marriage" of two other clergymen in one of the oldest and most respected churches in London. As for the inclusion of "all Mahometans" in the Church of England, Father Knox could surely never have imagined the Archbishop of Canterbury seriously discussing the inclusion of Sharia Law alongside normal British secular law. And the British Government has taken major steps towards Universal Bigamy, with social security payments towards multiple wives and sponsorship of serial polygamy and polyandry.

The fact that Father Knox could write such a satire shows that compromising forces within the Anglican Communion were powerful even a hundred years ago. People were distressed by the visible divisions among Christians, both at home and in the mission field and were tempted by the prospect of reunion at almost any price. And this was at a time when religious feelings ran very high. In 1909, a Corpus Christi procession through the streets was planned by the parish priest of St James in Reading. The uproar this caused rumbled on for weeks, with a local clergyman blasting against the "idolatry" of the Real Presence. The procession eventually went ahead, after the intervention by the Catholic bishop who wrote to the local police pointing out that such processions had been permitted elsewhere in England.

Journalism is the First Draft of History

It is now difficult to judge how truly widespread this anti-Catholic feeling was; the loudmouths always capture public attention and media headlines. It is often said that journalism is the first draft of history - a truly horrifying thought when you look at the British press. But there is plenty of other anecdotal and written evidence of how sharp the religious divide could be for much of the 20th century. In the 1940s one English Catholic bishop wrote the "The Times" explaining courteously how Catholics and Protestants could not honestly even say the Lord's Prayer together. "Thy Kingdom come" was the Catholic invocation for the universal spread of the Catholic faith, which no sincere Protestant could accept.

Father Knox's essay was brought to mind by the recent obituaries of the Very Reverend Professor Henry Chadwick, eminent Biblical scholar and long time leading light of the ARCIC (Anglican- Roman Catholic International Commission), who died on 17th June 2008. The following excerpts from his obituary in the "Daily Telegraph" confirms yet again my opinion that the DT, despite its countless other shortcomings, produces the best obituaries on the planet. It is especially outstanding with military heroes (whether the deceased be a ex-general or an ex-corporal, he is guaranteed a generous tribute) and the clergy of any denomination, as you can judge from the following passages:

Nothing in this early ministry indicated that Chadwick was to become one of the most incorporative figures in the Church of England, a man sympathetic to, and very well acquainted with, the Roman Catholic Church; a traditionalist who appeared to adhere to no particular group within Anglicanism; and an advocate of ecumenism whose actual sympathies lay tantalisingly beyond sight. For a person so generous in advising those who sought out his wisdom, Chadwick's internal conclusions about the everlasting balancing act which is the essence of Anglicanism always remained uncharacteristically unarticulated. Like his brother Owen, he never seems to have sought, and certainly never accepted, ecclesiastical preferment – except in the ambiguous sense that the Deanery of Christ Church, Oxford, was, essentially, in his day (1969-79), an academic post.

There has always been, about the Church of England, a certain imprecision when it comes to doctrinal formulation, and those most successful as Anglican churchmen are those who know how best to devise forms of words and constructs or accommodations which allow people of otherwise plainly incompatible beliefs to inhabit the same dwelling-place.

Chadwick was a master of the art. Unlike lesser men who attempted these skills, however, his labours were inspired by honesty of purpose and an apparently genuine conviction that the Anglican Communion had an unassailable integrity.
The limits to his methods, on the other hand, became apparent at meetings of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, [ARCIC] in its sessions between 1969 and 1981, and again from 1983 to 1990, when the Anglican penchant for resolving differences by devising accommodations based upon ambiguous verbal formulations had limited effect on the professionals of the Vatican.

Early successes at agreement were over simpler differences; when it came to ecclesiology, to the nature of religious authority, the Anglican methods proved sterile. Chadwick was personally disappointed: an important aspect of what he had correctly seen as a life's work had driven itself into the sands. He always treasured a vestment which the Pope had given him.

Our late local eccentric Father Brian Brindley, of Holy Trinity Church on Oxford Road, combined moany of the Anglican contradictions in one person. Although nominally Anglican, Holy Trinity was the only place in Reading where you could hear Latin Benediction and his tunic sported thirty-nine buttons "one for each of the Thirty-Nine Articles I don't believe in."

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s ARCIC was being savaged on a regular basis by various Catholic publications as the artfully composed "Agreed Statements" on numerous key topics were examined in the light of Catholic Tradition and found seriously deficient. If ARCIC could not come up with clear definitions of doctrine on "Authority in the Church" or Ministry (i.e. the priesthood) or the Eucharist, what was the point of its existence and why was anyone investing any more time, money or hope in it? As I indicated in an earlier post, who were we (the Catholics) really talking to? If we agreed that a given "Agreed Statement" was fully satisfactory and in full accord with Catholic Tradition, who on the Anglican side was going to accept it? Just the fragment of the Anglican Communion which happened to personally accept it, without any serious central requirement to accept it? The culture clash between the Anglican attitude of artfully balanced compromise and the Catholic tradition of centrally accepted dogma was never more clear, especially when Ratzinger and Co at the Vatican commented on one agreed statement. A horrified ARCIC member exclaimed that "We have been wasting our time for the last 20 years". Well of course you have; as an outsider to the process, it seemed clear that 90% of the blame lay with the Catholic representatives who plainly went too far along with the Anglican tradition of blurring the sharp edges of unavoidable disagreements.

The problems about getting theoretical agreement on abstruse points of ecclesiology were dwarfed by the real life divisions within the Anglican communion which have become more dramatically visible with every passing year. Some of the obvious highlights have been the uproars over the reality of the Resurrection (courtesy of our own Archbishop of Durham), the ordination of women in 1994 and the permissibilty of gay relationships and even gay "marriages". How on earth could we get into bed with such a totally confused and heretical shambles of an alleged church?

I wondered what had happened to ARCIC as I had heard nothing significant about it for years. I vaguely assumed that ARCIC had quietly gone into permanent cold storage, though, to save face, no one on either side would publicly admit that the process was futile. But no, it ploughed on regardless. As is often said about the British newspapers: "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story". But Catholic unease about the ARCIC process was evidently shared by some on the Evangelical wing of the Anglican church, (www.churchsociety.org) who came out guns blazing over the more recent (2005) ARCIC document on the Blessed Virgin.

Things Vainly Invented

I read the new ARCIC report with an increasing sense of incredulity. I had expected the claims made by the press, that Anglicans and Roman-Catholics have come to agreement on the doctrines of Mary, to be somewhat exaggerated, yet this is clearly what the members of ARCIC believe. The report covers four areas; Scripture, Christian Tradition, theological and practical.


The following are some of the conclusions reached:

• ‘The Scriptures lead us together to praise and bless Mary as the handmaid of the Lord…’(Para. 50)
• ‘Our two communions are both heirs to a rich tradition which recognizes Mary as ever virgin, and sees her as the new Eve and as a type of the Church.’ (Para. 50)
• 'We .. are agreed that Mary and the saints pray for the whole Church.’ (Para. 50)
• ‘the teaching about Mary in the two definitions of 1854 and 1950 … understood within the biblical pattern of the economy of grace and hope outlined here, can be said to be consonant with the teaching of the Scriptures and the ancient common traditions’. (Para. 60) (1854=immaculate conception & sinlessness of Mary, 1950=bodily assumption)
• Asking our brothers and sisters in heaven to pray for us is acceptable (Para. 68).
• ‘Authentic popular devotion to Mary, which by its nature displays a wide individual, regional and cultural diversity, is to be respected.’ (Para. 73).


Given the teaching of the Church of England and the rest of the Communion on these matters, how on earth could a body, which includes supposedly Anglican Bishops and scholars, come to make such statements?

This "Anglican" group obviously shared all the traditional Protestant misgivings about the Catholic devotion to Mary and were not going to shift their position one inch in response to any alleged paper agreement. So I think we can include them out of any combined church.

A more moderate comment from an Australian Anglican source (www.sydneyanglicans.net) noted the glorious ambiguity and confusion even within Anglican participants in ARCIC:

At the US release in Seattle of the statement, Archbishop Peter Carnley, Anglican co-chairman of ARCIC is reported to have said “for Anglicans, that old complaint that these dogmas were not provable by Scripture will disappear.”
Dr. Charles Sherlock from Melbourne, an ARCIC member, explained to the ABC’s Religion Report, “the document doesn’t say the dogmas [e.g. Immaculate Conception] are consonant with Scripture. What we’ve [ARCIC] done is reformulated what we understand to be the intention of those dogmas, and then our understanding we’re saying is consonant with Scripture.

One Christianity Today article, titled "Anglicans ‘Fudge’ on Mary", says that "if the [ARCIC] dialogue had been a baseball game, the Vatican would have won in a shutout. What we urgently require is an evangelical scriptural work on Mary. This ARCIC document doesn’t appear to be what’s needed."

So it doesn't look as if our friends Down Under are buying it either. If ARCIC was a business peddling its goods on the open market, it would have gone bankrupt decades ago.

Sadly Reunion All Round is going to be achieved the old hard way - one convinced soul at a time.