tub Catnoiic enurcu and

GUrlstien Unity

Hrtbur f. 3. IRemip

NEW YORK

$be ©aulist iPtess

120 West 6oth Street





The Catholic Church and

Christian Unity

BY

ARTHUR F. J. REMY

New York

THE PAULIST PRESS

120 West 6oth Street

1914.





TUB Catholic Church and Christian Unity.

HE 'desire for Christian unity

,

so widely mani-

fested at the present time, is a welcome symp-

tom to all who have the welfare of the Chris-

tian religion at heart. The divisions of

Christianity have not advanced the kingdom of Christ

on earth. Quite the contrary. In the words of Bishop

Anderson, “ Our many church labels are proving to be

libels against Christianity, and many religions are not

increasing religion.” Indeed, the divisions of Christen-

dom

,

the multiplicity of sects, and their uncharitable atti-

tude toward each other, furnishes to the unbeliever his

strongest argument. Even the non-churchgoing Chris-

tian refers sneeringly to a churchianity as opposed to

Christianity.

And the forces of unbelief are growing stronger and

bolder every day. A godless Socialism is loudly pro-
claiming the futility of all revealed religion. Chris-

tianity, we are told, is an outworn superstition; the re-

ligion of the future will dispense with creed and dogma

and insist on social service alone. A heavenly paradise

is declared a snare and a delusion
;
an earthly paradise

is the only goal worth striving for. And the forces ar-

rayed against the Church are well organized. Whatever

their differences in economic or social doctrines, when it

comes to opposing and uprooting religion they are one.

3



And they are untiring in their propaganda. Through

the press and the lecture platform thousands are being

converted to the new gospel of materialism, and are in-

duced to forsake the faith of their fathers. And a god-

less system of education, it is hoped, will presently bring

about the complete triumph of the modern paganism.

Truly, if ever there was need of a militant Church

,

it

is to-day. The forces hostile to religion are militant

—

aggressively militant. The Church must meet them in the

same spirit. No half-hearted measures will avail. But

how can a battle be fought with any hope of success

when there is no supreme command to which all render

obedience? How can there be victory without organiza-

tion, without union? The modern era, more than any

other, is an era of organization. Economic conditions

demand it. The Church cannot hope to be exempt from

the general law, for its work must be carried on by human

agency. To quote Bishop Anderson once more, “ Hard

facts are demonstrating that Christ's doctrine of unity

is the only workable doctrine in this practical workaday

world. It is being proved up to the hilt that the churches

cannot do the work of the Church."

And the missionary situation urgently calls for unity,

if Christianity is to spread to heathen lands. How can a

divided and discordant Christianity hope to make an im-

pression on a non-Christian world ? As a matter of fact,

it is not making any great impression. In the Moslem

world the Christian religion is practically at a standstill,

if not receding. In the eleventh century Omar Khayyam,

the agnostic Persian philosopher, could sneer at the sev-

enty-two sects of Mohammedanism
;
what would he think

of the hundreds of sects and sectlets in the Christian

yyorld to-day?

4



On every side the desirability of unity is being ac-

knowledged, especially in the English-speaking countries.

Only isolated voices of dissent are heard. The question

is : How is this unity to be brought about ? And on this

question the attitude of the Catholic Church, the largest

body in Christendom, is of supreme importance, nay

decisive.

Reunion movements are by no means new. They are

as old as schism itself. Repeatedly attempts were made

to reunite the Eastern and Western Churches, but with-

out lasting success. In the seventeenth century, when

religious wars were deluging the soil of Europe with

blood, the great German philosopher, Leibnitz, and the

great French divine, Bossuet, were busy with schemes to

reunite Protestant and Catholic. To-day a number of

societies exist, all working for a partial or complete res-

toration of the Christian world to unity. Some of these

societies, like the Evangelical Alliance, merely aimed to

unite the Protestant Churches
;

others, like the Eastern

Church Association, looked for a union of the Anglican

and Eastern Churches. Some, like the Association for

Promoting the Unity of Christendom, have a more com-

prehensive vision, and wish to include the Roman Church.

Reunion movements have also occupied the attention

of the Pan-Anglican Conferences, held decennially. Un-

fortunately, in the beginning these conferences showed

small sympathy for Rome, but recently a change of atti-

tude was manifested, the last of the conferences, that of

1908, recording it as their conviction
“ that no projects

of union can ever be regarded as satisfactory which delib-

erately leave out the Churches of the great Latin com-

munion.” To this every candid observer must agree.

Even if all the Protestant Churches would unite, and

5



even if such a united Protestant Church could be united

with the Eastern Churches, only half of Christendom,

or but little more, would be included. This would still

be a long ways off from Christian unity. When it comes

to the question of unity, Rome certainly cannot be ig-

nored.

In speaking for ihe Catholic Church

,

I am speaking for

a Church which has always possessed and successfully

maintained unity. In fact, it has ever had a passionate

desire for unity. Again and again it has made efforts

to reunite Christendom. But the Catholic Church has

never desired unity at any price. It has never offered

to compromise on essentials of faith or doctrine. It will

not now or at any future time make such a compromise.

The Catholic Church has always claimed that it pos-

sesses the divine truth by an unbroken historical tradition.

As the divinely-appointed custodian of this truth, it is

not at liberty to make any concession in regard to it,

either by addition or subtraction or substitution. If such

concession be regarded as indispensable to the success

of a movement for reunion, the Catholic Church will

stand aloof. Therefore
,
the best contribution that I can

make to a discussion of this kind, is to explain why the

Catholic Church feels justified in the adoption of an

attitude so rigid, so unbending, and, as it will seem to

many, so illiberal and intolerant.

Unity has always been one of the characteristic marks

of the true Church. The prayer of Christ was that they

should all be one. Christ and the Apostles knew only of a

Church, not of Churches. The Nicene Creed insists on

one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Schism was

abhorred in the early Church. St. Paul warns the Gala-

tians that if anyone should preach to them any other

6



Gospel than that which he had preached, even it be an

angel from heaven, “ let him be anathema" (Gal. i. 8).

Fathers and councils were unsparing in their denuncia-

tion of heresy. In the Middle Ages, when State and

Church were united, heresy was considered a heinous

crime and cruelly punished. The Reformation did not

at all break with this view. The reformed Churches were

just as intolerant of “ heresy ” as the great united Church

of the Middle Ages had ever been. And now, when

there were any number of Churches, the situation was

very complex. What was orthodox in one land was

punished as heterodox in another. And as there was no

acknowledged supreme authority to decide for the Prot-

estant world, it was generally a case of orthodoxy is my

doxy and heterodoxy is your doxy.

Of course, we have completely gotten away from the

theory that the State is the guardian of orthodoxy, and

we are profoundly grateful for that. Freedom of wor-

ship and belief is to-day enjoyed by all members of

civilized communities. Difference of opinion in religious

matters is viewed with complacency, and many be-

lieve that it really does not matter what religion a

man professes
;

all religions, at least all Christian forms,

are equally good, or, from the unbeliever’s point of

view, equally bad. Diversity of religions is considered

a sign of progress, and progress of course is regarded

as desirable in religion as in everything else. The Catho-

lic Church, which does not regard religion from this

purely human point of view, which confidently main-

tains its claim to be one true Church, which refuses to

abandon its ancient doctrines or to revise them in accord-

ance* with modern ideas, is branded as mediaeval, reac-

tionary, unprogressive, outworn, obscurantist, and what

7



not. It is good only for the ignorant and superstitious.

Nor are the Eastern Churches any better. And these

reproaches are made not only by unbelievers, but by pious

Protestants, who are but little troubled by the fact that

the people denounced as ignorant and superstitious con-

stitute the great majority of Christendom.

Now, we submit that it does take some self-confidence

for a minority to regard itself as undoubtedly right, and

the majority as undoubtedly wrong. All the more so,

when that minority cannot agree on a single point of

their creed, not even on the divinity of Christ. And

sublime indeed is the self-confidence of some single sect

numbering only a few millions to regard itself as pos-

sessing the true faith, and a Church of two hundred and

fifty millions as steeped in error.

It may be objected that numbers are no proof of truth,

and if the Church were merely a system of philosophic

or scientific formulas, this objection would be unanswer-

able. But the Church claims to be more than that: she

is the voice of the living God, the expounder of His law,

the teacher of moral truth. Man is to regulate his con-

duct, his whole life, in accordance with the divine pre-

cepts which she proclaims, and his salvation is contingent

on his acceptance of God’s law. The Church is no meta-

physical abstraction, but a very practical reality. It is,

therefore, of the utmost moment whether her doctrines

and precepts reach mankind. And these precepts are

for all mankind. A Church that can command the alle-

giance of only an insignificant fraction of the human

race, may be a success from an abstract point of view

—

as a practical organization for doing God’s work among

men it is a failure. Now, if it were true that the doc-

trines of the Roman Catholic Church are perverted and

8



erroneous, or as is asserted of many of them in a Pres-

byterian theological manual, “ absurd and blasphemous,”

then Christianity, with more than half of its members

professing these doctrines, would be in a desperate state

indeed.

To one who believes neither in God nor a future life,

the Church is a mere human institution, useful perhaps

as a sort of moral police. This was the view of Napoleon

when he said, “ I regard religion not as the mystery of the

Incarnation, but as the secret of social order.” In all

other respects the Church is useless. And this is but

logical. For, if there be no God, the Church is worse

than useless : it is an arrogant pretender appealing to

ignorance and superstition to maintain its authority, and

grotesquely out of place in a modern “ enlightened
”

world. To one who holds these opinions a lecture on

Christian unity is meaningless. But if the Church is

really divine in origin, founded by God Himself, it is

fatuous to treat it and view it as a mere human institu-

tion; to ask that it shall conform to every modern shift-

ing theory; to talk about progress and evolution and

revision as if you were talking about some system of

law -or government, created of man and subject to his

will. If God be perfect and unchangeable, so is His

truth. The truth that Christ proclaimed two thousand

years ago must be the truth to-day. It cannot be brought

up-to-date by continually revising it. It need not pro-

gress. What should progress is our understanding of it.

Furthermore, this truth is utterly independent of

science. Science can tell us nothing about the super-

natural. As Macaulay strikingly has demonstrated in

his well-known essay on von Ranke, “ divinity, properly

so-called, is not a progressive science.” No discovery

9



in physics will ever invalidate the decalogue, or explain

Christian mysteries like the Trinity or Incarnation. To

deny the existence of the supernatural because we can-

not realize it by our senses, is tantamount to limiting

human knowledge to sense-experience, and that were

rash indeed. No Christian will accept it. And to argue

about the reasonableness or absurdity of Christian dog-

mas is futile. These dogmas do not appeal to sense-

experience, nor are they the result of rationalistic pro-

cesses. They are revealed.

It is also perfectly useless for Protestants to object

to Catholic dogmas, like transubstantiation, on the ground

of unreasonableness. Is the dogma of transubstantiation

any more unreasonable than that of the Trinity? Is it

any more comprehensible or more wonderful than the

Incarnation? Is it logical to regard these two dogmas

as reasonable and worthy of belief, and to reject the

other as absurd? The Catholic does not believe in tran-

substantiation because it is reasonable, but because it is

revealed; he accepts it on the authority of his Church,

and in this authority he has implicit confidence. For

this confidence he has good reasons, as we shall see.

The doctrines of Christianity do not rest on scientific

proof, but on revelation. Faith is the essence of the

Christian religion, and faith is above reason, but not

against reason. The proofs for the divine origin of

this religion are not scientific or philosophical, but his-

torical.

The Christian religion—but where is it? There is a
bewildering multiplicity of Churches calling themselves

Christian, but teaching different doctrines and following

different forms of worship. No matter how much we

attempt to minimize these differences, they are distres-

io



singly evident. They are so great as to amount to abso-.

lute contradiction—and this in matters so vital as, for in-
stance, the manner of man’s salvation. Is man saved by

faith alone, or are good works also essential? Are the

sacraments absolutely needed, or is their reception op-

tional ?

Now every Christian Church claims to have Christ’s

doctrines pure and unchanged. The Catholic Church cer-

tainly makes this claim and makes it absolutely. But so

does every Protestant Church. The reformers of the

sixteenth century all claimed to have restored the Church

to its primitive purity, to have stripped it of the errors

which Rome had imposed upon it. And among these

errors are dogmas held as fundamental by the Roman

Catholic Church then, as well as to-day: the doctrine of

the Real Presence and the sacrifice of the Mass, seven

sacraments instead of two, the invocation of the saints

and others.

Now, before the year 1517 these doctrines were held by

all Christendom, Eastern as well as Western. They are

still held to-day by the Roman Catholic as well as the

Eastern Orthodox Churches
;

that is, by the overwhelm-

ing majority of Christians. Yet they are pronounced by

Protestants to be errors. Furthermore, in spite of the

protests of isolated heresiarchs, these doctrines were held

by all Christians throughout the whole period of the

Middle Ages, or, even if the claim that primitive Chris-

tianity did not hold them were conceded for the sake of

argument, these doctrines prevailed in all Christendom

for many centuries. During all that long period, there-

fore, the whole Christian Church was steeped in error;

in other words, there was for a long time no true Church

of Christ on earth.

11



If this be so, what guarantee is there that there is a

true Church of Christ to-day? It certainly takes a sub-

lime assurance on the part of some single sect limited

in membership, and confined to a small geographical

area to assert that, after centuries of error, it and it

alone has recovered the true form of Christianity. And

what are we to think of Christians speaking about the

divinity and truth of their Church, the necessity of bring-

ing this Church and its truth to the heathen, of “ evan-

gelizing ” the world, and yet asserting that the whole

Church at one time had lapsed into error? And what

are we to think of the minority still claiming that the

majority are in error, especially when this minority can-

not agree among themselves what the true doctrines of

Christianity really are? When, in fact, the only point

on which they can agree is to disagree with the majority.

This is certainly a peculiar situation for a Church that

claims divine origin! And it is a strange spectacle for

the unbeliever. No wonder that thousands are turning

their back on all Churches, and becoming infidel or indif-

ferent. Hopelessly at sea where to find the true Church

which Christ founded, they take refuge in indifferentism,

which virtually means that all Churches are more or less

in error, that it does not matter what a man’s religious

convictions are, so long as he lives up to them, and that

a man is free to believe what he pleases. In most cases

the indifferent man settles the question by believing prac-

tically nothing, and by ignoring the Church entirely.

If there exists no true Church to-day, or if it is impos-

sible to ascertain which it is and where it is, then we

must admit that Christ’s mission was a failure, and that a

new Messiah is needed to do the work in which He failed.

But this assumption would nullify the promise of Christ

12



Himself, when He said that He would abide with His

Church to the end of time, and that the gates of hell

should not prevail against her. The Catholic trusts in

Christ's promise

,

and is convinced that the Church never

lost the great truths that He taught. Whatever her faults

in any period, her teachings did not go astray, or Christ’s

promise would have come to naught. And there was no

doctrine accepted during the Middle Ages throughout

Western Christendom except that of Rome. So the

Catholic stands firmly on historical ground; he rejects

the claim of the reformers that the mediaeval Church had

lost the truth. If His Church was true then, it is true

now. Her doctrines have not changed, whatever contro-

versialists may say. This is often flung as a reproach

against the Church. But the Catholic is proud of his

consistency. Let others revise their creeds to bring them

up to date; that is, to obliterate them. He clings to the

faith as it has been transmitted from Christ through the

Apostles.

I said
,
Roman Catholic doctrines have not changed .

Nor have new ones been added by the Popes, as is so

often asserted. No Pope can alter doctrine in any way.

But he can explicitly define what has been implicit in the

faith. Thus the much maligned dogma of infallibility

is not new. The Church has always held that as a teach-

ing body, she is infallible. And no Catholic claims that

the Pope is infallible in the sense that infallibility is in-

herent in his person. He is infallible only when he speaks

ex cathedra

;

that is, as supreme teacher of the Universal

Church. As a private theologian, preacher or author, as

judge or ruler, he is liable to err like every human being.

And no Catholic has ever put up the absurd claim that

the Pope is impeccable; that is simply a Protestant

12



legend, and one that no intelligent Protestant ever took

seriously.

The doctrine of infallibility cannot seem absurd to

those who believe that the Church is really God’s institu-

tion, the visible agency for carrying on His work. On the

contrary, it is a perfectly reasonable doctrine. For, if

God be infallible, and if He has founded the Church, how

can He let the Church flounder in doubt and error?

When a German theologian boasts, “ We Protestants do
not claim infallibility” (Hunzinger, Das Christentum im

Weltauschauungskampf der Gegenwart)
,
nobody will dis-

pute his claim. How could it be maintained in view of

the actual divisions in Protestant Christendom ! And be-

cause it cannot be maintained, thousands are in doubt

whether the Churches can give them the truth, and, as a

consequence, they are leaving the Churches to seek guid-

ance elsewhere.

The cause of these divisions is well known : it is the

doctrine of private judgment. To this the Catholic op-

poses the claim of authority. Authority is the rock of

Catholic unity, and this unity is the one thing which the

Roman Catholic Church possesses, which even her bitter-

est opponents concede to her, and which the Protestant

envies. Submission to authority is the indispensable pre-

requisite of any real unity. This, of course, is wholly

contrary to the spirit of unbridled individualism that has

been in evidence ever since the Reformation, and that is

so rampant to-day. Submission to authority in religious

belief is indignantly rejected by many as unworthy of a

modern enlightened man. It is denounced as intellectual

bondage and degrading slavery. If blind submission to an

authority without credentials were demanded by the

Church, this attitude would be the only correct possible

14



one for a thinking human being. But the Church pre- -

sents ample proofs for her claims- to authority. The

words of Christ to the Apostles are unmistakably clear.

He gives them power to teach all nations in His name,

and commands men to hear them (Mark xvi. 15, 16). He

expressly condemns those who will not hearken : “ And

if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the

heathen and publican ” (Matt, xviii. 17). And He prom-

ises to send the Holy Ghost, the spirit of truth, that

He may abide with this Church forever (John xiv. 16, 17,

et passim). Is not this clear proof that He established

a living magisterium, divinely guarded, to safeguard the

transmission of His truth? And this also ought to dis-

pose of the popular theory that a man can have religion

without belonging to a Church. If religion were mere sen-

timent that might be possible. But religion must show it-

self in action. Christ evidently had no use for religion

without a visible Church. Furthermore, He does not leave

it optional with man to heed or ignore that Church. “If he

will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen

and publican.” More than half of the population of these

United States seems to come under this description, for

they are unchurched. And for this, denominationalism

is directly responsible.

And where is this authority? The Roman Catholic

answers, “ In Rome,” because Rome is the See of St.

Peter, whom Christ appointed as His successor on earth.

It is impossible for me to discuss the question of Roman

primacy. It is also unnecessary. The arguments are acces-

sible to anyone who takes the trouble to search for them.

The Catholic side is fully presented to the English reader

in the great Catholic Encyclopedia just published. Suffice

it to point out that it is a historic fact that the primacy

i5



of Rome was conceded by the whole of
Western Chris-

tendom in the period preceding the
Reformation by Eng-

land and Germany, as well as by Italy
and Spain. And

before the great Eastern schism, the
East also acknowl-

edged this supremacy ; Eastern
Churches in their disputes

repeatedly appealed to Rome. And this primacy
is clearly

attested as early as the second
century by St: Irenaeus,

Bishop of Lyons, when controverting
the heresy that

threatened even at so early a time to
disrupt the unity of

the Church. He directs these heretics to
the greatest and

most ancient Church founded at
Rome by the Apostles

Peter and Paul, and distinctly refers
to this Church as

the standard of true apostolic
doctrine, to which every

Church must conform. So well
established is the fact

of Rome’s primacy in the early
centuries of the Christian

Church, that controversialists in
their efforts to make it

appear as a usurpation have even
tried to deny that St.

Peter ever was in Rome. Lipsius spent
a lifetime in this

task
;

yet his arguments have failed to
convince even

Protestant scholars. And the charge of
imposture based

on the False Decretals has been
hopelessly exploded.

The Pope, as the visible head of
the early Christian

Church, is an indisputable historic
fact, explain it as you

will.

The term Roman Catholic does not imply
by any means

that the Church is only or chiefly
for Rome. It is not in

any sense a national Church.
If St. Peter had taken his

seat in Canterbury, then Canterbury
would be what Rome

is now : the seat of the successor of
St. Peter, the Chief

See of Christendom. The term
Anglican Catholic would

then have the same universal meaning
that Roman Catho-

ric has now. The Universal Church
must ever be opposed

to the principle of national
Churches. Christ did not.es-

16



tablish one Church for one nationality, and another for

another. Christianity was meant to be a universal re-

ligion. “ Teach ye all nations.” The spirit of nationality

in religion does not make for unity; quite the reverse.

It is the most potent factor in every schism. The separa-

tion of the Eastern Churches from Rome was largely

caused by the unfortunate antipathy between East and

West. The Reformation was furthered by the appeal to

the Germanic spirit against the Latin spirit. To-day ap-

peals are constantly made to American, English, German

or Scandinavian patriotism against the Roman Church as

a foreign Church, an Italian Church, representing a Latin

Christianity. The fact that Rome is in Italy and Latin

the official language of the Church, are stock arguments

of those who try to stir up national prejudice against the

Catholic Church. As if Rome and the Latin language

were not inevitable historical phenomena ! The connection

of the Papacy with Rome is historic. So is the use of

Latin. If the Pope should reside in the South Sea Islands,

he would still be the Sovereign Pontiff, because he is the

successor of St. Peter. And if the Mass were said in

Chinese, it would still remain the central act of Catholic

worship. In the East Mass is actually said in the vernac-

ular. By keeping the venerable language of early West-

ern Christendom, the Catholic Church secures uniformity

of worship. And why should not a Universal Church use

a universal language? And which language has a better

claim to be considered universal than Latin.

No, the great Church of Rome can never he a mere

national Church. The Papacy can never be identified

with any one nationality. Whenever it was recreant to its

exalted trust and too much entangled in local interests,

as in the days of Avignon, the Papacy was weakest. To-

1

7



day it is absolutely without temporal power, but never

was it stronger spiritually. Throughout the whole wide

world, Catholics of every nationality acknowledge the

Holy Father as their spiritual ruler.

No mere State Church can have the strength, the power,

the majesty of the Church Universal. This was impres-

sively demonstrated by the Counter-Reformation. In the

words of Macaulay (Essay on Ranke) : As the Catholics

in zeal and union had a great advantage over the Protest-

ants, so they had also an infinitely superior organization.

In truth, Protestantism, for aggressive purposes, had no

organization at all. The Reformed Churches were mere

national Churches. The Church of England existed for

England alone. It was an institution as purely local

as the Court of Common Pleas, and was utterly without

any machinery for foreign operations. The Church of

Scotland, in the same manner existed for Scotland alone.

The operations of the Catholic Church, on the other hand,

took in the whole world. Then he pays it the tribute by

calling it “ the very masterpiece of human wisdom.”

This in view of its success. But the Catholic sees in

these successes more than human wisdom : he remembers

the promises of Christ.

An established national Church that depends on the

State for support, is bound to be servile. It is too apt to

become a mere tool in the hands of worldly government.

It loses the love and confidence of the people. The al-

liance between Church and State in the long run costs the

former dearly. Certainly the Church of Rome has not

profited thereby; witness the situation in France and

Portugal. And the alliance between Church and State

in Prussia is one of the best assets of German Socialism.

But subserviency has never been a mark of the Roman

18



Church . She has never hesitated to defy States and

princes when principle was at stake. She defied the

Eastern emperors in the early days
;
she refused to yield

her prerogative of investiture to the German emperor,

Henry IV.
;
she opposed the proud Hohenstauffens in the

heyday of their power; she refused to surrender to the

iniquitous demands of Henry VIII. of England; she

resisted the encroachments of the insolent Louis XIV.,

the great French monarch; she defied Napoleon at the

height of his power, and two Popes suffered exile and

imprisonment rather than surrender their sacred trust.

And the great Napoleon has passed away; his triumphs

are only a memory. But the Pope still rules. In our

day we have seen the Church unhesitatingly bid defiance

to the greatest statesman of the day, Bismarck, backed by

the might of the victorious German Empire
;
and though

the Papacy could not muster a single soldier, it emerged

victor from the struggle. And even now Rome has suf-

fered the loss of her possessions in France, but she will

never surrender her principles at the bidding of a godless

anti-Christian government. The Roman Catholic Church

does not depend on the support of any State
;
she thrives

in an atmosphere of religious freedom. To one who reads

history aright this is not surprising. The Roman Catholic

Church has ever been the staunchest defender of religious

freedom against the pretensions of the despotic State.

In the words of Barry, “ So long as the Vatican endures,

Caesarism will not have won the day ” (Barry, The Pap-

acy and Modern Times

,

Preface).

To be sure, the Church has its human side. While

founded by God
,

its .work must be carried on by men

,

and men are not perfect. Abuses and corruptions crept

in. Repeatedly were reforms instituted in discipline and

19



practise. But no matter how great the abuses have been

—and Catholic historians do not palliate or excuse them

—

they constitute no argument against the Church and her

teaching. A system is not condemned because it is ad-
ministered by corrupt officials. A Church is not to be re-
garded as having fallen from grace because one of its

ministers, even if he be a leader, has gone wrong. Even

the Apostles had their Judas. No single religion has a

corner on virtue, nor a monopoly of vice. The national

Churches have by no means a clean record. The Reform-

ation has its seamy side, which impartial historians are

exposing with great candor. The reformers themselves

were not at all saints. Moreover, the ancient Church,

not even in its darkest days, was ever wholly corrupt,

as is sometimes loosely stated. There were always hosts

of men and women distinguished for piety and devotion,

who led exemplary Christian lives. In fact, the great

mass was never corrupt. That there were bad Popes,

that many of the highest members of the hierarchy led

un-Christian, worldly lives, that many clergymen were

remiss in the performance of duty—all this will not be
disputed. A reformation that would have confined itself

to the correction of these abuses, that would have re-

formed practise only, would have been an unmixed bless-

ing. And this was all that Luther originally intended.

But unfortunately neither he nor his fellow-reformers

would stop here. They changed doctrines. And no

Catholic will ever admit that they had any commission

from God to do this. No man, not even the Pope, can

change the doctrines of the Church. The tradition of the

ancient Church, continuous and unbroken, ought to weigh

more than the opinions of mere men. And it is signifi-

cant that from the very beginning these self-constituted



reformers could not agree in their opinions on dogma.

And from all this the position of the Catholic Church

on the question before us may be inferred.

A Church which regards itself not as the creator

,

but as

the guardian of God’s truth, divinely revealed and spe-

cially entrusted to her, cannot make any compromise

where this truth is involved. She cannot give away what

is not her own. She cannot omit or alter her sacred dog-

mas to bring in outsiders. In the words of Pope Leo

XIII., in an encyclical on True and False Americanism

(1899), "Let them return; indeed, nothing is nearer to

our heart. Let all those who are wandering far from

the sheepfold of Christ return; but let it not be by any

other road than that which Christ has pointed out.”

But if the Church cannot concede essentials, she can

make, and in the past has made, concessions in matters

of practise, for instance, as regards the language and

form of the liturgy, the celibacy of the clergy, the resi-

dence of the head of the Church in Rome, the method of

his election, matters of Church government; in fact,

all that affects the rule of life.

Projects of reunion broached at the present time can

never win the adherence of Roman Catholics as long as

they fall short of aiming at the only unity that is real

and worth while—unity of belief. Mere corporate re-
union, each Church coming in with its organization in-

tact, would be a monstrosity. It could only be on an

undogmatic basis, and the Catholic Church has no place in

such a scheme. Nor will the formula,
“
Comprehension,

not compromise,” solve the difficulty. It would result

not in a “ synthesis of distinctions,” but, as Father Smith

( Catholic Encyclopedia
,
under “ Union,” vol. xv., p. 1 5 1

)

points out, in a synthesis of contradictions.

21



But Catholics will have the warmest sympathy for

every movement that makes for a better mutual under-

standing of different Christian bodies, and thus help to

pave the way for ultimate reunion. Above all, it is neces-

sary that misunderstandings be removed. Ages of sec-

tarian life and strife have created misunderstandings that

are hard to remove, prejudices that are so hardened that

they will not dissolve. Terms of abuse, like Popery,

Popish, Romish and Romanism, are often employed as

if they were arguments. What is needed is not contro-

versy, but calm and dispassionate explanation and a will-

ingness to learn. And in this respect the United States,

with a free Church in a free State, can teach a lesson

to many an older country, e. g.y Germany, with its State

Churches and bitter religious divisions. There a book has

just now appeared, with a number of essays, one of which

is entitled, The Protest Against the Roman Perversion of

Christianity
,
a Duty of Christian Piety. The title sounds

familiar to students of sixteenth century theological lit-

erature. In any century such an essay would be an act of

impertinence
;

in the twentieth century it is an anachron-

ism. Its only effect can be to promote bigotry.

After all, Christians should cultivate a feeling of solid-

arity. Instead of emphasizing the differences, emphasize

what there is in common. After all, Christ is our com-

mon Redeemer, and we are united in one hope of heaven.

And when it comes to works of charity, to deeds of

mercy, to social service, there should be neither Catholics

nor Protestants—only Christians.
Above all, let us realize that, whether unity be realized

or not, Christians should stand together against the as-

saults of an infidel world, that hates the very name of

God. When one Church weakens another the Christian

22



cause suffers. Especially is this the case when Catholi-^

cism loses
;

for seldom does Protestantism gain thereby.

The man who forsakes Catholicism as a rule turns infidel.

This was already noticed by Macaulay in 1840 (Essay on

Ranke)
;

it is still true to-day. The losses which the

Catholic Church sustains in Latin Europe are losses to

Christianity. These defections simply swell the ranks

of unbelief. The growing pressure of infidelity seems

bound some day to bring the Churches nearer together.

Even that cloud has its silver lining.

Yes, Christian unity is a consummation devoutly to be

wished; but the prospects of its achievement are not of

the rosiest. If history is to point the way, then that

way lies through Rome. For one thousand five hundred

years Western Christendom was united with Rome. To-

day union without Rome is impossible. Such union at

best would only be partial.

If the attitude of the Roman Church seems to be to

many not conciliatory enough, let it not be ascribed to

lack of charity. Only because she has such an exalted

regard for the sacred trust committed to her by Christ,

her divine Founder, does the Church refuse to compro-

mise on essentials of faith. I hope I have made that

clear. For the rest, in the spirit of Christian charity, she

welcomes all to unite with her. To quote the words of

Pope Leo XIII., in his encyclical on The Reunion of

Christendom (June 20, 1894) :
“ Let us all meet in the

unity of faith and the knowledge of the Son of God.

Suffer that we may invite you to the unity which has

ever existed in the Catholic Church and can never fail;

suffer that we should lovingly hold out our hand to you.

The Church, as the common Mother of all, has long

been calling you back to her. The Catholics of the world

23



await you with brotherly love, that you may render

holy worship to God together with us, united in perfect

charity by the profession of one Gospel, one faith, and

one hope.”

In conclusion let me cite the verses with which Sadi,

the Persian poet, ends his Gulistan, or Rose Garden:

“ I have given counsel as was befitting my position
;

if it

fall not on pleased ears, it is the duty of the messenger

to speak his message and no more.”

[The above article is an address delivered by Dr. Remy at the

Mt. Morris Baptist Church, New York City. Dr. Remy spoke

in answer to an invitation from that Church, requesting him

to give the Catholic view of Christian Unity.

—

Editor.]

24





THE

CATHOLIC WORLD

THE OLDEST CATHOLIC MAGAZINE IN

THE UNITED STATES

The Catholic World presents every month

capable articles on matters of Catholic interest.

Among its contributors are the best known

writers of America. It publishes stories,
short

and long; essays; poems, and notices of recent

books. If you wish to keep in touch with the

best in contemporaneous Catholic literature,
read

The Catholic World.

Subscription Price $3.00 a year

THE CATHOLIC WORLD

120-122 West 60th Street

New York City