[Russia and the Universal Church] [Previous] [Next]
Archbishop Philaret inadvertently laid bare the real condition of the separated Eastern Church. The Slavophiles have attempted to conceal her nakedness under the transparent veil of an idealistic theory of the Church “in its free and living unity founded on divine grace and Christian charity.” Their doctrine, in so far as it envisages the Church in general terms as a moral organism, is perfectly true, and they must be given credit for having insisted in theory upon its essential and indivisible unity which has been so completely ignored by our official theologians and our dissenters. On the other hand, those who consider that the Slavophiles, in expounding the positive conception of the Universal Church confine themselves too much to vague generalizations, will find this same conception of the Church much more fully and clearly developed by certain Catholic writers, especially by the famous Möhler in his admirable work, Die Symbolik der christlichen Kirche.1
The Church is One is the title given by Khomyakov, the leader of the Slavophile group in Russia, to a small volume of dogmatic theology which, though insignificant in itself, deserves notice as the only attempt on the part of the Slavophiles to fix and systematize their theological ideas. The unity of the Church is determined by the unity of the divine Grace which, if it is to work within men and transform them into a Church of God, demands from them fidelity to a common tradition, brotherly charity and that free consent of the individual conscience which is the definite guarantee of the truth of their faith. It is on this last point especially that the Slavophiles insist in their definition of the true Church as “the spontaneous, inward synthesis of unity and freedom in charity.”
What objection can there be to such an ideal? Is there any Roman Catholic who, on being shown the whole of mankind or a considerable section of it inspired with divine love and brotherly charity, having but one heart and one soul, and abiding thus in a free and wholly interior unity — is there, I ask, any Roman Catholic who would wish to impose upon such a society the external and binding jurisdiction of a public religious authority? Do any papists believe that the Seraphim and Cherubim need a Pope to govern them? And, on the other hand, is there any Protestant who, if he saw the actual attainment of final truth through “the perfection of charity,” would still insist on the exercise of private judgment?
The perfectly free and inward union of men with the Godhead and with one another — that is the supreme goal, the haven towards which we steer our course. Our Western brethren are not agreed among themselves as to the best method of reaching it. Catholics believe that it is safer to cross the sea together in a large and seaworthy vessel built by a famous master, navigated by a skilful pilot and equipped with all that is necessary for the voyage. Protestants, on the contrary, claim that it is for each one to construct a cockle-shell to his own liking that he may pursue his uncertain course with greater freedom. This latter opinion, however mistaken, is at least arguable. But what is to be said to these self-styled Orthodox who maintain that the best way of reaching harbor is to pretend that you are there already, and who think that in this respect they have the advantage of their Western brethren? The latter, it must be admitted, have never suspected that the great problem of religion was capable of so simple a solution.
The Church is one and indivisible; yet it may at the same time comprise various spheres, not to be separated but to be clearly distinguished from one another; otherwise, it would be impossible to understand the past or present history of religion or to do anything for the religious future of mankind. Absolute perfection can only belong to that higher part of the Church which has already once for all appropriated and assimilated the fullness of the divine grace — the Church triumphant or the realm of Glory. Midway between this divine sphere and the purely earthly elements of visible humanity stands the divine-human organism of the Church, invisible in its mystical power and visible in its present manifestation, sharing equally in the perfection of Heaven and in the conditions of material existence. This is the Church, properly speaking, and it is with her that we are concerned. She is not perfect in the absolute sense, but she must possess all the necessary means of secure progress towards the supreme ideal — the perfect unity of the whole creation in God — in spite of countless obstacles and difficulties, through the struggles, temptations and weaknesses of men.
Here below, the Church has not the perfect unity of the heavenly kingdom, but nevertheless she must have a certain real unity, a bond at once organic and spiritual which constitutes her a concrete institution, a living body and a moral individual. Though she does not include the whole of mankind in an actual material sense, she is nevertheless universal in so far as she cannot be confined exclusively to any one nation or group of nations, but must have an international center from which to spread throughout the whole universe. The Church here below, though she is founded on the revelation of God and is the guardian of the deposit of faith, does not therefore enjoy absolute and immediate knowledge of all truths; but she is infallible, that is to say, she cannot be mistaken when, at a given moment, she defines such and such a religious or moral truth, the explicit knowledge of which has become necessary to her. The Church on Earth is not absolutely free, since she is subject to the conditions of finite existence; but she must be sufficiently independent to be able to carry on a constant and active struggle against the powers of the enemy and to prevent the gates of Hell from prevailing against her.
Such is the true Church on Earth, the Church which, in spite of the imperfection of her human element, has received from God the right, the power and all the required means to raise and guide mankind towards its appointed end. Were she not one and universal, she could not serve as the foundation of the positive unity of all peoples, which is her chief mission. Were she not infallible, she could not guide mankind in the true way; she would be a blind leader of the blind. Finally, were she not independent, she could not fulfill her duty towards society; she would become the instrument of the powers of this world and would completely fail in her mission.
The essential and indispensable characteristics of the true Church are, it seems, settled and clear enough. Nevertheless, our modern Orthodox, after confusing the divine and the earthly aspects of the Church in their nebulous reasonings, are quite prepared to identify this muddled ideal with the present-day Eastern Church, the Greco-Russian Church as we see it. They affirm it to be the one and only Church of God, the true Universal Church, and they regard other communions as nothing but anti-Christian associations. Thus, while accepting in theory the idea of the Universal Church, the Slavophiles deny it in fact and reduce the worldwide character of Christianity to one particular Church which in other respects is far from corresponding to the ideal which they themselves uphold. According to their notion, as we have seen, the true Church is “the organic synthesis of freedom and unity in charity,” and it is in the Greco-Russian Church, they say, that we are to look for this synthesis! Let us try to take them seriously and see what there is in the idea.
**** **** ****
1. This work is commended and frequently quoted in the Prælectiones theologicæ of the official dogmatic theologian of the Latin Church, the late Fr. Perrone, professor at the Collegium Romanum and member of the Society of Jesus.
No comments:
Post a Comment