Preface (Cont.) (4)

Ritualism, considered in its general features, is precisely a reaction against the immoderate incursion of Protestant principles into the system of Episcopalism. In it two directions are noticed which, however, share one and the same general aim. One of them wishes to restore in Episcopalism only those principles and forms by which it was distinguished in the age of the Reformation and from which over time it had deviated in the direction of Protestantism. The other is not limited to this and aims to restore in the church those forms which existed in it even before the appearance of Anglicanism.[1] Both directions agree in the conviction that present-day Episcopalism is not the true expression of that church movement which was only a limitation of the abuses of Roman Catholicism but had gone into an undesirable extreme of Protestantism and thus deviated from the essential principles of truly church life. The so-called “XXXIX Articles,” which constitute the symbolic expression of the essence of Episcopalism’s doctrine, are in the opinion of Ritualists purely “Protestant articles fastened to a Catholic liturgy,”[2] and as such should be rejected or radically revised. While legally these views have not yet been expressed in any formal determinations, in practice they have already been widely applied. Ritualistic churches in New York, the chief center of American Ritualism, have substantially transformed their worship, and it strikes with the splendor and magnificence of its forms, by which it thus essentially differs from the Protestantized simplicity of ordinary Episcopal churches. In transforming the worship, Ritualistic churches naturally had in view either ancient Anglicanism or even Roman Catholic forms, and therefore the liturgical and ceremonial side in them presents considerable similarity with Roman Catholic worship, and essentially differs only in that it is performed not in Latin but in English. Splendid vestments, icons, crosses, incense—all this bears the Roman Catholic imprint.[3] But Ritualism is not limited to the restoration of only the external forms lost in the Protestant movement but also strives to adapt the very doctrine of the church to those true principles from which Episcopalism had deviated. Thus Ritualism, contrary to the symbolic book of Episcopalism, recognizes all seven sacraments, permits confession, recognizes transubstantiation in the Eucharist, the invocation of saints, prayers for the dead, and the foundations of celibate monastic life.[4] What then is Ritualism in its inner essence? It is evidently a movement in the direction of those forms and principles of truly church life from which deviation had come to appear to a certain part of Episcopalians as sectarian delusion, extreme Protestantism and consequently a denial of the essential elements of life in the true Christian church. But such a movement, in order to realize its fundamental idea, must have in view not only the general ideal of true church life but also its more or less concrete realization, with which it could conform itself in its direction. Otherwise the movement either will be in constant process of wavering or will plunge into an undesirable extreme. This question has deep vital significance for Ritualism and seriously occupies the leading minds of its best representatives. The whole fate of Ritualism depends on the solution of it one way or another, and Ritualism has already made more than one attempt to resolve this question for itself.

In the 1860s, when the spirit of the age was pressing most insistently the questions about the direction of the religious consciousness of the American people, Ritualism was manifesting extraordinary vitality within itself. If pure Episcopalism had proven inadequate before the demands of the age, then Ritualism tried to take its place and in its quality as a “Catholic” church opened its embrace to the weary and exhausted Protestantism. Its preachers with remarkable sensitivity noted the mood of the time and openly began to attack Protestantism as a completely unsuccessful and even false movement and proclaimed that the only salvation could be only in the return to “Catholicity,” as the true expression of true church-religious life. Particularly prominent in such preaching was the well-known New York Episcopal preacher with a Ritualistic inclination, Doctor Ewer. In the autumn of 1868 he came forward with a series of sermons in which with remarkable force and boldness he proclaimed the complete failure of Protestantism in satisfying the demands of the religious spirit of humanity and depicted in vivid colors the sad condition of church life in the realm of Protestantism. These sermons of his, under the general title: “The Failure of Protestantism,” produced a deep impression on American society[5] and the newspapers gave exact stenographic accounts of them. They represent a very characteristic expression both of the general religious condition of the American people and especially of the movement which grew out of dissatisfaction with this condition. In them with remarkable force is expressed the thirst of the American religious spirit for that true “Catholicity” which it vainly seeks among the Christian denominations existing in America. In this sense they have direct relation to our subject and therefore we consider it necessary to briefly set forth their fundamental ideas.[6]

The present religious condition of the American people, in the opinion of the preacher, is passing through one of those crises which from time to time have occurred in the religious-church life of humanity as a result of departure from the true principles of Christianity. Already in the first centuries of Christianity one of such crises occurred—namely the appearance of Arianism, and the consequence of this crisis was that “uncorrupted Christianity rose up in its strength against error and true, pure, apostolic faith was thus restored and confirmed.” In the Middle Ages another crisis occurred. Roman errors slowly grew and developed until finally in the 11th century serious Catholics in the eastern part of the church, no longer able to bear the spreading evils, rose up in their greatness to condemn them; and the Orthodox Eastern (or Greek) Church determined to break communion with Rome, which separation continues to this day.[7] Meanwhile in the Roman part of Christianity those same errors continued to grow and new ones were added to them, until finally in the 15th century serious people throughout the West rose up in their greatness against them and produced the so-called ‘Reformation.’ Protestantism came to dominance but with it the crises did not cease. On the contrary they took a worse form. Protestantism, having rejected firm church principles, stepped upon the slippery path of rationalism, and from this, besides continuous small crises, there is being prepared a general and most terrible crisis for all religious-Christian consciousness. In the midst of it unbelief grows and develops, practical life becomes freed from the influence of religious-Christian principles and the ‘communion of saints’ is destroyed. It is too one-sided in its narrow individualism and too cold for religious enthusiasm, so that in it there is no outlet for those by nature enthusiastic persons who could find their happiness only in complete renunciation of gray practical life to devote themselves to service of a higher divine ideal (monasticism). Because of the one-sided abstractness of its principles, it has proven inaccessible to the popular masses and therefore has degenerated into aristocratism—with brilliant preaching and high fees for church pews.[8] But even in the intelligent classes themselves its wandering instability develops indifference, in consequence of which very many, weary of the changeability of forms, reject all forms of church life and live by general Christianity alone, losing themselves in its vague indefiniteness.[9] Thus Protestantism itself shows its wretched inadequacy to satisfy the religious demands of humanity. It constitutes a completely unsuccessful and harmful movement and is preparing a terrible crisis. One must seek salvation from it. But this does not mean that salvation from it should be sought in Romanism. “This would mean returning from an evil consequence to the cause of all evils.”[10] No, salvation should be sought “in the restoration of the ancient, Catholic and apostolic foundations, free from the admixture of Roman errors.” The signs of the age show the beginning of a movement in this direction, a movement toward the restoration of the “Catholic Church in its continuous life as a divine institution, furnished with supreme authority and adapted to the needs of all ages.”[11] But what is the “Catholic Church”? Does it exist on earth and if it does, where? “The Catholic Church is a living organism, universal in space and universal in time—back to Christ himself.” It is a living body having one organic head; a visible body with invisible life, and this life, this soul of the Church, is Christ.[12] As a visible, living organism, it obviously must exist in space and time. Protestant communities cannot be this organism because their historical life does not go back to the very source of the church’s origin as a continuously living and developing organism. “But suppose I turn to our (Episcopal) church. I find that it as an organism, with its hierarchy and church life, goes back into the Middle Ages of England, and through the early period of Britain—even to the times of the apostles. Here apparently there is something Catholic. But do not hurry. The life of the Roman Church I can trace equally continuously to the apostles. The same distinctive feature of continuous existence back to the apostles is found also in the Greek Church.”[13] If one looks carefully at these three churches, it will turn out that between them there are important differences. “Rome has a pope and the cult of Holy Mary the Ever-Virgin, which is not in the Greek and Anglican organisms.”[14] But if one looks even more carefully, one can notice that although these three churches—Anglican, Greek and Roman—differ in some respects, they are remarkably similar in everything else. “All three have a hierarchy of bishops, priests and deacons. All have a sacred altar of the awful sacrifice as the central purpose in their churches. All have vested clergy. All have days of saints and solemn church seasons. All have a ceremonial side in their worship. All trace their life from the first century. All have magnificent ceremonies and processions; the Greeks have the most brilliant, the Romans less so and Anglicans even less. All recognize the authority of the universal councils. All have the same apostolic succession and the same sacraments. Here, thus, I begin to find the Catholic Church. Those not many particular features by which the Greek, Anglican and Roman churches differ from one another are simply local; but all those many features in which they agree form for me visibly, firmly and distinctly the great Catholic Church; one in space as in an organism, and one in time; existing equally in Russia, and in Italy, and in England, and in America, in Mexico, in Germany and Brazil—everywhere, existing also in the 19th century and also in the Middle Ages and in early periods—unchangingly and unchangeably. All that in the Anglican, Greek and Roman communities which all three hold in common and which they have held everywhere, always and by all—that is Catholic. All else, every particular feature which we have but Rome and the Eastern Christians do not have, or which Rome has but we and the Greeks do not have, or which the Greeks have but we and Rome do not have—that is simply local, particular, not Catholic.” Trying to give a vivid explanation of his theory, Ewer resorts to a well-known comparison of the church with a tree. “For simplicity,” says he, “let us take a tree. For eight feet above the ground the trunk stands single and undivided. Somewhere at the ninth foot it divides into two main branches. The eastern we shall call the Greek branch, and the western we shall call the Latin branch. Six feet higher on the Latin branch, that is at fifteen feet above the ground, this western branch divides into two large branches. The outermost of them we shall call the Anglican branch, and the other we shall call the Roman. These two branches and the Greek branch go upward to 19½ feet from the ground. And thus there exist three great branches, each with its own foliage, Anglican on the west, Roman in the center and Greek on the east. If now you look only at the top of the tree, you will see before you three separate groups of vegetation, although the foliage and color are the same. But look at the entire tree and—you will see a symbol of the Catholic Church—one organism from root to top.”[13] The branching did not destroy the unity. But why have these three churches broken off all relations and communication with one another? “In reality the unity of the organism was not destroyed; communication between its three parts is only interrupted temporarily until there occurs in the one Church of God that differentiation which, as Spencer remarkably shows, is the law of all growth; differentiation which in its final phase appears not as complete separation but as final unity in manifold diversity, harmony of coordinated parts. Thus we have found what the Catholic Church is.”[15]