LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
THE OLD CATHOLICS.
[TO THE EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR:]
Sis,—May I be allowed to make two or three remarks on your article relative to the Old-Catholic Conference at Bonn ?
1. The statements agreed on are confessedly, as I understand, not articles of faith to be permanently retained, but only articles of agreement drawn up with a view to further deliberation. Tley do not profess to be final, and therefore, that they are somewhat vague is surely not so blameworthy.
2. It is generally held amongst theologians that Greeks and Westerns do not disagree as to doctrine in the matter of the Double Procession, but only at to expression. It seems, there- fore, quite inaccurate to say that the Greek Church holds a wrong tradition on one of the most central doctrines of Anglican theology. Anglicans, at any rate, do not generally think so.
3. The reason why Anglo-Catholics and Old Catholics are pre- pared to enter on a discussion of the " Filioque " is not, as your article asserts, because of the date of its insertion, but the manner. The date has nothing to do with the question, the manner a great deal.
4. Though for the reason stated above, the article about the Rule of Faith does not profess to be very definite, it is far from being so mpnningless as your article would imply. On Anglo- Catholic, Old-Catholic, (I should suppose) Roman Catholic principles, the Greek Church is undoubtedly "an ecclesiastical body in historical continuity with the Primitive Church." It is not committed to heresy for the reason stated in (2), and it has Orders. If a break in Orders were merely "a break in a parti- cular chain of ceremonies," the criticism on its importance, as compared with schism and heresy, would be just. But according to all Catholic principles, Orders are a condition of the special guidance of the Holy Spirit, and are, therefore, to a considerable extent a guarantee of the true faith. The limitations, then, laid down in the Bonn article are neither unreal nor unreasonable.
5. A Catholic, even if he were not to object to your "very Broad-Church view" of the rule of faith, would still think it
gave quite ground enough for excommunication of heretics. He would agree with you that the gift of faith came from God alone, but as the heretic was not fit to receive it, he would not be fit to be in communion. No one can determine his moral guilt, but his fitness for Church communion can be determined. Excommunica- tion is like capital punishment. A murderer may not be the most immoral man in the State, but it is still necessary to remove him. The heretic may not be the most immoral man in the Church, but in a society which believes that the Catholic faith is the means to holiness, a wrong belief is hopelessly out of place. Immorality (as Dollinger contends that the Apostles held) poisons the stream, heresy the fountain.
6. Is it true to say that there are only two logical positions for the believer in Revelation,—the Ultramontane and the Broad Church ? To my mind, the Catholic (Anglican and Old) is at East as tenable. A priori, it seems quite reasonable to say, "Divine truth is enshrined in an external institution which exists, though its members are not all in communion with one another, and which is marked by one continuous organisation and one con- tinuous faith." Historically, I believe, this theory is also defen-
Previous page
