I do not think that it will be felt to be offensive or inaccurate
if I say that none of the 'free' Churches (Methodist, Baptist, Congregationalist,
Salvation Army, and so on) sets up to be the only true and genuine Church.
Their point of view is rather that the claims of other Churches to a monopoly
of the truth are unsound.
They are, in a word, 'Protestant'.
They stand for the freedom of the individual Christian and the individual
congregation to decide questions of doctrine and worship according to conscience.
In general, they avoid set forms of service, and they tend to concentrate
on preaching and extempore prayer rather than on the sacramental aspects
of religion.
At the other end of the scale stands the Church of Rome.
She claims outright and without compromise to be the true and only Church,
and does not recognize the claims of any other.
She bases this claim on the words of Jesus ('upon this rock I will build
my Church') to Saint Peter, who was traditionally the first Bishop of Rome;
on the historical continuity of the Roman Church from apostolic times to
the present day;
on the fact that she has spread all over the world and is still by far the
largest Christian body;
and on her record of sanctity and missionary achievement.
Her worship revolves about and is centred on the Mass (that is, the Holy
Communion).
Her priests, from the Pope downwards, are in complete authority on matters
of faith and morals, and are the agents through whom men receive God's forgiveness
of sins, by means of confession and absolution
('Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them;
and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained').
Clearly there is no possibility of reconciling these points
of view;
and the crucial question is whether the claims of Rome are correct.
If so, whatever our personal prejudices, there can be no doubt of our duty.
The claims of Rome cannot be disposed of lightly.
Nor, on the other hand, can it be lightly assumed that all the good Christians
who are outside the Church of Rome are wrong in being outside.
We must try to see both sides impartially.
Many of the arguments often brought forward against the Roman
Catholics are due to prejudice, ignorance, and misunderstanding.
We need not waste time on them here.
The first thing to do, obviously, is to find out what the Roman Church does
teach, and this is open to anyone who will take the trouble to visit the
nearest Roman Catholic Church and purchase a two-penny pamphlet.
A short study of the literature will show that practically everything that
has been put forward in this book regarding the Creed and the Sacraments
is included in the official teaching of the Roman Church.
So far, then, we have no cause to quarrel.
This, as we have seen, is basic Christianity, resting on sound evidence and
common sense.
But we shall also find that there are certain things which the Roman Church
expects us to accept on her own sole authority, and it is here that we come
up against serious difficulty.
Consider, for example, the Roman Catholic practice of invoking the prayers
of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints.
[It is a practice
and not an article of faith. But it is certainly part of the official teaching.]
Without going into the question whether this is a good or a bad practice,
we must agree that the sort of evidence that supports the articles of the
Creed cannot justify it.
We should have no reason to suppose that the Saints could hear and respond
to our prayers if the Church did not tell us so.
The real point, therefore, is whether the Roman or any other Church has the
right to speak with authority on this and other matters over which there
is no independent check.
The Roman Church does claim this authority, on the ground that she is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit against error, and that what she teaches must consequently be true.
Take, again, the system of 'indulgences'.
Here is an official definition:
'An Indulgence is a remission granted by the Church to those who are free
from the guilt of mortal sin, of the whole, or of a part of the temporal
punishment due for sins already forgiven. ...
By temporal punishment, as distinguished from eternal punishment, is meant
punishment which is due for sin and which will come to an end, either in
this world, or in the next world in purgatory.'
This is a tremendous claim, which, once more, cannot be said
to rest upon any evidence or to be capable of being checked;
it can only rest on the authority of the Church which makes it, that is to
say on the assertion that the Church is not only empowered by God to make
good the claim, but guaranteed by God against error.
In the long run, such claims are summed up in the doctrine
of the infallibility of the Pope.
This does not, of course, mean that the Pope is supposed never to be able
to make a mistake in any?thing.
But it does mean (again to quote an official definition)
'that the Pope cannot err when, as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals, to be held by the whole
Church.'
The difficulty, which many people feel, is to reconcile this
claim with what we know about God and about the facts of history.
It is unlike anything else that God has allowed us to know about himself
that he should compulsorily prevent anyone, even the Pope, from making a
wrong decision.
It is also very hard, without a good deal of straining of facts, to come
to the conclusion that throughout the whole of its history the Roman Church
has never in actual practice made a mistake in its teaching.
There is no point in raking up forgotten controversies, and the Roman Church
has long since got rid of most if not all of the abuses that led to the Reformation.
But if abuses occurred, as admittedly they did, and were for a time officially
condoned if not approved, it is not easy to reconcile this with the view
that the Holy Spirit has invariably guided the Church in question to be the
sole and infallible authority on faith and morals.
This is not to suggest that the Church of Christ has never been truly
guided;
only that, in the divided Church, no branch can claim a monopoly of
guidance.
To feel these doubts, however, does not, of course, justify
us in rushing to the other extreme and asserting that the Roman Church is
utterly wrong.
As we have seen, its essential beliefs are completely in line with all that
we have found to constitute basic Christianity.
If there is any force at all in the line of thought which we have been pursuing,
the Roman Church cannot fairly be criticized on the ground that she attaches
first-class importance to the Sacraments and the priesthood, with all that
this may legitimately imply.
The only sound ground of criticism is this claim to a monopoly of the truth
and to an exclusive share in the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
It is, of course, this claim, which is the great obstacle
to a reunion of Christendom.
On the Roman view, such a reunion can only come about through the submission
of all Christians to Rome.
This is entirely logical, as is the refusal of Roman Catholics to take part
in any joint worship or religious effort with other Churches.
To suppose, as some do, that this attitude is due to religious snobbery or
to a lack of Christian charity is wholly unfair to the Roman Christians.
It is because they sin?cerely believe that they and only they are right -
and that, not through any merit of their own, but by the will and direction
of God?that they must believe the others to be wrong;
and it would therefore be wrong for them to compromise in any way for the
sake of a short-term advantage.
But if, on the other hand, we admit the possibility that the Roman claim
to a monopoly of the divine guarantee may not be well founded, we have at
once to admit the possibility that the other Churches may also claim a share
in the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
In other words, we may reasonably conclude that all Christian Churches (including
the Church of Rome) are right, in so far as they adhere to the basic truths
of Christianity, and at the same time wrong, in so far as they contribute
to the disunion of the Christian brotherhood by attaching too much or too
little importance to different aspects of the faith.
We may then be forced to decide, however regretfully, that it is not God's
plan that we should be relieved of the necessity of think?ing for ourselves
by being provided with an infallible Church, and that the one true Church
does not at present exist;
though we need not doubt that, in his own good time, God, as always accepting
that which is imperfect and patiently turning it into perfection, will lead
his straying flocks into one fold.
In the meantime, faced with the task of choosing from amongst the many imperfect
representations of the true Church, we are bound to ask whether there is
not a Church which, while holding firmly to the basic principles of the
faith, the Creeds, the Sacraments, and the priesthood, yet claims no monopoly
of inspiration and no right to impose an external authority upon the freedom
of thought and conscience of the individual Christian.
There are such churches;
and we in England are especially fortunate, in that there is one in every
town and village of our land.
Page^