Preface (Cont.) (5)

The arguments presented by the venerable Doctor Ewer[1] expressively depict the condition of the religious spirit of the American people—especially the Episcopal community. It is a complete consciousness of the inadequacy of those religious principles by which it now lives and a thirst for the higher principles of “Catholicity.” Weary of the fragmentation and variability of Protestant forms, it seeks the firm unity of the great church organism, the one Catholic Church.[2] But in seeking this Catholicity there strikes at the same time the vagueness of consciousness about where exactly pure Catholicity can be found and by what path to come to it. Recognizing the abnormality of the present condition, the religious spirit of the American people instinctively guesses in what it can find the saving way out and seeks it in “Catholicity” but Catholicity itself is only instinctively felt by it and in it there is yet no clear and distinct consciousness that could directly point it toward the desired way out. Ewer, through his analytical process of thought, arrives at recognizing Catholicity in three main church communities namely the Anglican, Greek and Roman. From a certain perspective he is right, but the Catholicity found in such a way presents something so indefinite, impersonal and organically disunited that for concrete consciousness it presents no tangible guarantee of the viability of such Catholicity as an organic, living body of the church. Meanwhile in the very process of his thinking lie the data for a more satisfactory solution of the problem. The process of religious-church development took place through a series of crises arising from deviation of this development from its original pure Catholicity. When deviation threatened dangerous consequences for the church the most truth-sensitive parts of it rose up against such deviation and separated themselves from those in error. This separation, judging from its origin, obviously had as its purpose the better preservation of uncorrupted Catholicity. The first phase of this separation was expressed in the separation of the Eastern Church, which first perceived the deviation of the Roman Church from the path of true development. The deviation meanwhile in the erring part, namely the Roman Church, continued to increase until finally other parts also perceived this deviation, obviously less sensitive to truth than the first separated part, and they also separated from the erring one. Thus Anglicanism occurred. Thus we have one church developing unwaveringly along a false path and two other churches which rose up against such error and separated from it for the preservation of pure Catholicity. But they separated at different times. The first separated as soon as deviation from truth became noticeable in the Roman Church while the second lived for whole centuries in union with an admittedly erring church and separated from it only when the error had become unbearably obvious. Both the one and the other church separated with the purpose of preserving pure, uncorrupted Catholic faith. But from this it naturally follows that pure Catholic faith can be found in greater inviolability and purity in that church which proved most concerned with the preservation of true and uncorrupted faith and hastened to separate itself at the first signs of deviation from truth in the Roman Church. The second, meanwhile, having lived for whole centuries more in organic connection with the erring church, by necessity became itself imbued with error, and when finally it recognized the abnormality of the Roman Church’s development, then for the preservation of Catholicity simple separation was no longer sufficient for it; it had not only to separate but also to purify itself from contracted errors, and from this Anglicanism appeared not only as a separated church but also as a Protestant one. Because of the reaction against the intensified evil, it had to not only separate from Roman Catholicism but also push away from it, and from this it did not remain on pure Catholicity but went into Protestantism. But Protestantism is the opposite and most dangerous error. It does not satisfy the religious spirit of humanity which thirsts for Catholicity. Thus the only way out remaining is—to turn to that church which first perceived the deviation from truth and separated itself for its preservation. By its separation it protected itself from participation in the further development of the false direction and did not experience the crisis that led to Protestantism. If thus, where pure, uncorrupted Catholicity still exists, it must exist in that very church which first perceived the error and separated itself from it. By the admission of Ewer and others, this Catholicity exists. If so, then the direct and natural consequence from Ewer’s very analytical process of thought can only be that Catholicity in its pure truth exists only in the Eastern Church. Anglicanism, as having been nourished by the juices of a contaminated organism, in its effort to free itself from them, deviated into Protestantism. Roman Catholicism, as the cause of all these crises, is itself a contaminated organism. There remains only that organic part which separated at the time when deviation from truth had only just arisen and in it lies pure Catholicity. This part is the Holy Eastern Catholic Church. As having preserved within itself pure and uncorrupted Catholicity, it is the organic center of true Catholic faith and from this center other church communities can receive pure Catholicity—through bringing their religious principles into harmony with its Catholic principles. Such Catholicity, represented by the Eastern Church, is not an abstract concept to which Ewer came but is a living, concrete truth embodied in a living, historical and integral organism of the church.

Thus Ewer need only have carried his analysis further to its final natural conclusions and instead of indefinite Catholicity he would have come to a concrete church organism preserving within itself this Catholicity from those very times when, as a result of the beginning error developing, it was necessary to separate and isolate it from the process of false development. But if Ewer did not come to such a natural and logical conclusion, then to it the general consciousness of the entire Episcopal Church in America is involuntarily inclined.

Episcopalism, as we have said above and as it is defined by Ewer, is a “Catholic Church elaborated on Protestant principles.”[3] As based on compromise between two opposite principles—Roman Catholicism and Protestantism—it contains within itself an internal contradiction which manifests itself in any more or less deep church-religious movement. In ordinary times it still apparently shows integral and organic vitality; but as soon as there comes any period with a new strong demand from the side of church-religious life, then immediately its internal inadequacy is exposed. The opposite elements composing it show their irreconcilable opposition and the entire church organism is put in danger of disintegration. Its heterogeneous parts cease organic activity and in this clearly show an inclination toward assimilation with whole organisms standing outside Episcopalism. From this many Episcopal priests pass into Roman Catholicism and many laity go into extreme Protestantism. In the general direction of the community the same opposition is evident and while one party inclines toward Roman Catholicism the other shows no less inclination toward Protestantism. The first finds its expression in Ritualism while the second finds its expression in the so-called “Reformed Episcopal Church” which in its principles is nothing other than Protestantism carried further than ordinary Episcopalism.[4] In view of such a condition of Episcopalism the words of a Roman Catholic publicist receive some justification when he says: “The Episcopal Church must labor either for us or for Protestantism. It has no field of its own for harvest and no middle ground for an honest spirit. It has already sent many talented and pure souls to the house of truth and purity and we Catholics daily receive those whom it has brought to our doors.”[5] But an organism, although suffering from opposition of essential elements and principles of life, still has within itself the instinct of self-preservation and therefore Episcopalism, feeling its own internal inadequacy, seeks support from without. If individual members of it, unable to bear the contradiction of the principles composing the Episcopal Church, seek internal reconciliation and rest in accepting these principles in their separate existence and complete expression and therefore embrace either Protestantism or Roman Catholicism, then for the whole organism such an outcome is certainly impossible and would be equivalent to self-denial or suicide against which the faint spark of organic life within it rises up. Having no sufficiently firm ground beneath it Episcopalism seeks it from without and in doing so naturally it could only turn where it could find positive principles without the extremes of Protestantism or Roman Catholicism. And it turned to the Orthodox East. While in Protestantism the flickering deceptive lights of religious inspiration gradually yield place to the darkness of rationalism and in Roman Catholicism the progressive development of extreme papalism increasingly Latinizes Catholic Christianity, in the East unwaveringly continues to shine the bright sun of pure Catholic Christianity and its rays invitingly beckon and caress all seeking light. As soon as Episcopalism turned its eyes to the East, it at once understood that if light of Catholicity could come to fractured Christianity it could only come from the East. Ex Oriente lux. In this life-giving light the Episcopal Church saw hope both for its own existence and in it arose the passionate desire to draw closer to the source of this light. From this came a series of attempts on the part of Episcopalism to enter into closer communion with the Orthodox Church of the East.

III

The striving of Episcopalism toward unity with the Orthodox East manifested itself with particular force precisely in that period when in the consciousness of the American people with particular insistence there became evident the tendency toward religious and political unity when the idea of one strong church began to demand factual realization and when at the same time most clearly appeared the inadequacy of the existing churches and sects to embody this idea. In that very year when the bold speeches of Doctor Ewer rang out about the bankruptcy of Protestantism and the necessity of seeking salvation in Catholicity in the autumn of the same year there assembled the usual triennial general convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church of America. The venerable assembly of prelates and laity of the Episcopal Church had already been predisposed in its sympathies toward the East and therefore the question of relations with the Orthodox East had already been placed before it by the time itself; but acceleration of its resolution was further assisted by the fact that members of the Anglican Church, in which too the need for unity with the East was felt, in order to give their striving a more real basis decided to inspire the initiative of actual relations on this subject to the American Episcopal Church as more independent in its activity. To the 1868 general convention the English society—“The Eastern Church Association”—submitted a long memorial on this subject. “Seeing,” it is stated in the memorial, that it has pleased the great Head of the Church in recent years to place in the hearts of people in different parts of Christianity belonging to different religious communities long in disagreement (variance) a deep conviction that this division is contrary to the will of Him who is the Prince of Peace and Friend of unity and that it has arisen in many cases not so much from essential difference in the foundations of faith as from mutual unfamiliarity and misunderstandings and more than anything from the lack of mutual love and conscious that such division among Christians at present serves as one of the chief causes of the spread of unbelief and irreligiousness and a chief obstacle to the salvation of souls; and thinking also that all who grieve over the division of Christianity have upon them a solemn obligation to strive as much as depends upon them to reunite them and restore the unity of spirit in the bond of peace your memorialists respectfully wish to direct the attention of the venerable assembly to: 1) what has already been done with God’s help to achieve this holy purpose and 2) the grounds which apparently indicate that the Church of America is especially adapted by Divine Providence to take upon itself the initiative at this critical moment for undertaking the most desirable measures for the restoration of communion between the Anglican community and the great Orthodox Churches of Russia Constantinople and Greece.[6] Restoration of communion is presented as desirable with all Christian denominations but the attention of the Episcopal assembly is directed first of all to the East and for the following reason. “While,” continue the memorialists, “the disagreements between us and the Church of Rome are so great that all hopes or efforts for reunion with it would be worse than useless such an insurmountable obstacle does not exist with respect to drawing closer to the East and that therefore with God’s help the unity of churches could be restored in this direction. In any case this undertaking is worthy of an attempt. Obviously the first step in this unknown field of labor should consist in preparing the ground for future investigations removing obstacles placed in the way by various prejudices misunderstandings and ignorance becoming acquainted with the sentiments of our Eastern brothers toward us and clarifying to them our desires.”[7] With precisely such a purpose the named society was formed and it has already labored considerably in this respect but at the same time according to experience it came to the conviction that the most adapted for accomplishing the great work of restoration of church unity is the American Episcopal Church. The memorialists “most respectfully declare that the American Church is more capable of taking upon itself the initiative on this delicate subject than the Church of England. Not constrained by state control independent in its church and civil organization it apparently by Providence itself is destined to pave the way for the union not only of states but of churches into a sacred federal union. Continuous friendly relations between Russia and the United States and close commercial relations between the two countries give confidence that these proposals from the American Church for reunion would be favorably received by the Russian government both ecclesiastical and civil and this at the same time would undoubtedly also be pleasing to the majority of members of the American Church who in their diocesan conventions have already expressed lively interest in the subject. Another important motive for beginning action lies in the actual proximity of the two churches in the region of the Pacific coast recently ceded by Russia to the American government. This region contains many Orthodox residents and there has long existed a Russian mission on the Aleutian Islands. Is it not incumbent upon the American Church to care for these sheep without a shepherd without violating the rights of their recognized spiritual authorities?”[8]

The venerable assembly of representatives of the Episcopal Church as we have said above was already prepared by the very demands of the age for the question which with such insistence was proposed by the memorial of the “Eastern Church Association” and therefore naturally it could not be left without some resolution. But its resolution could not take place in the circumstances then existing. Despite all the urgency of the need for its resolution this question was at the same time extraordinarily difficult. History had developed no preparatory premises for it except the consciousness itself of the necessity for resolution. It was necessary first to investigate the logical and historical data on which the question itself is based so that one could proceed to the actual realization of the striving for unity with the Orthodox East. Without such investigation it could be only pious aspirations without any guarantee of achieving practical results. But for such work a special organ was necessary which would specially devote itself to the development of preparatory data as necessary material for the resolution of the main question. No such organ existed in the Episcopal Church and therefore it was necessary to create one. The idea of such an organ first and foremost arose as the result of the memorial of the named association. When the memorial was presented for discussion at the convention it met with energetic approval. A resolution was submitted to the assembly on the question of church unity and it was adopted by both houses of the convention in the following form:

Whereas the restoration of the unity of the churches is a matter of great importance for without the restoration of unity it is impossible for it to perfectly carry out its mission in the world and