C O N S T A N T I N O P L E A N D T H E L A M B E T H CONFERENCE

REPORT OF THE DELEGATION TO THE LAMBETH CONFER- ENCE OF THE OECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE AT

CONSTANTINOPLE.

ERTAIN facts must be stated in the words of c the first-hand authorities :

A . ' Another welcome sign of East and West draw-

ing closer together is found in the letter from the locum tenens of the Oecumenical Patriarchate at Constantinople unto all the Churches wheresoever they be, which was sent from the Phanar to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

' Chief in importance, however, has been the visit of a special delegation from the Oecumenical Patri- archate to London for purposes of consultation with Bishops attending the Lambeth Conference on relations between the Orthodox and Anglican Com- mu n i o n s .

' This visit was the result of a formal invitation from the Archbishop of Canterbury to the locum tenens of the Oecumenical Patriarchate at Con- stantinople. To this visit we have reason to attach the highest importance.

' The delegation, consisting of Philaretos, the Metropolitan of Demotica, Professor Komninos of Halki, the Archimandrite Pagonis of London, and the Archpriest Callinicos of Manchester, was wel-

2 5 1

Biac&riars

comed by the President in full session of the Con- ference, and your Committee has had the advantage of more than one conference with it, at which im- portant questions, doctrinal and practical, were discussed, and full consideration given to the matters specified in the letter from the Phanar re- ferred to above, in which letter we would call special attention to the desire expressed for immediate co- operation in matters of social reform.’

(Lambeth Conference, 1920, V. (€9, Part 111. Report of the Sub-Committee (a) on Relation to and Re-union with Episcopal Churches. I. T h e Orthodox Eastern Church, p. 147.)

In this document we have witness to the following facts :

( I ) His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury invited the Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople to send an official delegation to the Lambeth Conference of 1920.

(2) T h e Oecumenical Patriarchate acceded to the request of the Archbishop of Canterbury by sending a delegation to the Lambeth Conference of 1920.

(3) This delegation of the Oecumenical Patriarchate was officially welcomed by the Lambeth Conference ; and had several conferences with the Committee on Relation to and Re-union with Episcopal Churches. (4) T o this visit of, and conferences with, the dele-

gation the Committee of the Lambeth Conference had ‘ reason to attach the greatest importance.’

B. The next document describes the publication,

despatch and reception of the official report of this delegation of the Oecumenical Patriarchate of Con- stantinople, which it made to ‘ T h e Most Reverend and Holy Synod ’ of Constantinople.

252

Constantinople and the Lambeth Conference

‘ The translation of the Report of the Constanti- nople 1920 Delegation to Lambeth was officially forwarded to us from the Phanar.

‘ T h e Greek original may be read in the N ~ O F noLpv of September, 1921.

‘ In regard to this report, which is a document of first importance in our movement, we should especially draw attention to the Delegation’s obser- vations (p. 19) on the Lambeth Appeal. These, read in conjunction with Professor Gloubokovsky’s article, leave, we think, no doubt as to the correcti- tude of the position taken up by The Christian East as to the present impossibility of our reaching that dogmatic agreement which both the Delegation and the famous Russian theologian warn us is the in- dispensable preliminary of formal re-union.’

(The Christian East, a Quarterly Review devoted primarily to the study of the Eastern Churches. Edited by the Rev. H. J. Fynes Clinton and the Rev. J. A. Douglas, B.D. Published for the Anglican and Eastern Association by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. Vol. 111, No. I , page 47.

In this document we have witness to the following facts :

( I ) The Delegation of the Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople to the Lambeth Conference issued and published its official Report in Greek in Sep- tember, 192 I .

(2) An official English translation of this Report was forwarded (to the Anglican and Eastern Asso- ciation?) by the Phanar.

(3) The official organ of the Anglican and Eastern Association thinks that this report ‘ is a document of first importance ’ ; thus re-echoing the forecast made

253

Editorial.)

BZacl&iars

by the Lambeth Committee that the visit of the Dele- gation would prove to be ' of the greatest importance.'

There would seem no doubt that in view of the efforts made by the Church of England to enter into living relationship with the Orthodox Eastern Church, this Report of the Delegation to the Lambeth Con- ference is not only a historical document, but an ecclesiastical pronouncement of first importance. Indeed, we cannot recall any document of equal im- portance ; with the exception, perhaps, of the Aposlo- l ime Curae, which gave the Papal decision on Anglican Orders. But, whereas the Papal decision regarded only one issue, and not the fundamental issue between the Church of England and the See of Rome, this Report of the Constantinople Delegation deals with almost every fundamental issue raised by the isolation of the Church of England from what the Lambeth Conference calls the Episcopal Churches.

Our duty to the crisis raised by this Report makes it imperative to give as fully as we may the actual words of the Report.

CI. THE FUNCTION OF THE DELEGATES AND MOST

REVEREND AND HOLY SYNOD (p. 2).

' Our first and most important task in conformity with the object of our mission was to represent the Oecumenical Patriarchate at the Pan-Anglican Conference of Lambeth.

' In conformity with the character of this confer- ence it was natural that after our official presentation to it our contact and association with it should be limited to co-operation with its Special Committee, which was to examine the questions regarding the relation of the Church of England to ours, and at the same time with the committee which, in accord-

254

Constantinople and the Lombefh Conference

ance with the relative decision of the preceding Lambeth Conference, was appointed as the stand- ing body set apart to deal with the affairs of the Eastern Church, and to which accordingly every relative question was referred for consideration and decision' (pp. 3, 4). This bears witness to the following facts: ( I ) The Delegation officially represented the Oecu-

menical Patriarchate of Constantinople at the Pan- Anglican Conference of Lambeth.

(2) Its terms of reference allowed it to discuss the relations of the Church of England to the Orthodox Eastern Church.

(3) Its terms of reference did not allow it to take any further part in the Lambeth Conference.

Thus the presence of these delegates of the Oecu- menical Patriarchate was no sign of accepted inter- communion. I t was but the obvious effort of men who are trying to foreclose differences of opinion by a frank explanation of the objects of difference. It is clear that Constantinople, in sending these dele- gates to a Church technically in the Western Patri- archate, had no intention of withdrawing from its his- toric and unique claims.

c2. THE ACTIVITIES OF THE DELEGATION.

' With each of the committees we sat repeatedly, exchanging views and opinions, of which the pur- port is set forth below' (p. 4).

' Afterwards began the discussions concerned with the questions with which the committees from Athens and the respective committees from Serbia and Roumania were also occupied. Although from the publications issued by our own people we

255

Blac&iars

had knowledge of the discussions with the com- mittee from Athens, we thought it right that before any discussion took place the proceedings relating thereto should be read, as also those with the Ser- bian and Roumanian committees. Such reading would limit the discussions within certain bound- aries, and would make us better acquainted with the answers made by our friends and by Orthodox foreigners, which we ought to bear in mind in the interests of the details and of the general aim pur- sued by us’ (pp. 4, 5). From this document it is clear : ( I ) That when the Report of the Lambeth Confer-

ence says that ‘ more than one ’ joint conference took place between the Lambeth Committee and the Dele- gation, this phrase means ‘ repeatedly.’

(2) The Report of the Delegation is therefore an official document drawn up, not after a few and per- functory meetings, but after repeated and carefully limited discussions. In other words, it is a most accurate and authoritative document.

(3) The Delegation from the Oecumenical Patri- archate took pains to act in unison with the committees from Athens, Serbia and Roumania. In other words, these delegations agreed upon a joint plan of discus- sion which no doubt gave them much influence with the Lambeth Committees.

c3. THE CLAIM O F THE ORTHODOX CHURCH.

‘ I t is very easy to understand that they (i.e. the English Church) perceive no difficulty in sacra- mental intercourse with us, whom also they look upon generally as representing the ancient un- divided Church’ (p. 7).

2 5 6

ConstantinopZe and the Lambefh Corrference

‘Being questioned as to the meaning of the phrase of the Encyclical Patriarchaie, we found it necessary to make clear that our Church had not yet, like the Western Church, made a public pro- nouncement regarding the possibility of salvation of Christians outside the bosom, but that, as was to be expected, it does not accept those who do not belong to it as forming a part of the Church in the true and proper sense of the word. Accordingly, whenever it uses the term Chzcrch with regard to the Churches which are not or2hodox, it uses it in a wider sense, and not in the narrow and proper sense of the word’ (p. 11).

These statements bear witness to the following facts :

( I ) The Orthodox Church claims to represent (and to be?) the ancient undivided Church.

( 2 ) The Delegation are of opinion that members of the Church of England in general admit this claim of the Eastern Orthodox Church to represent the ancient undivided Church. This is truly the opinion of the Delegation. But we hardly think the opinion true. It is a statement which our own not superficial know- ledge of English Churchmen, lay and cleric, does not confirm.

(3) The Orthodox Eastern Church claims that no Church which is not in communion with it is part of the true Church, in the proper sense of the word Church. Neither the Church of Rome, nor the Church of England, is part of the true Church.

(4) In the mind of the Orthodox Eastern Church the term Clzurch, when applied to the Church of Eng- land and the Church of Rome, is a mere courtesy-title not used in the proper sense of the word.

257

Blackjriars

c4 CRITICISM O F THE DOCTRINE O F THE CHURCH O F

ENGLAND.

(a) ‘ T h e idea of the Church among them (ie. the English) is much wider than ours.

‘While with us the true member of the Church who continues in organic union with the whole must accept the whole of our teaching, share canonically in the Holy Sacraments, and believe in lawfully settled ecclesiastical principles.

‘ In the English Church men differing from each other in faith, not in things indifferent and non- essential, constitute one undivided whole . . .

‘ To however great an extent, in conformity with our mission, we were inspired with the most friendly feelings and the warmest zeal for a new approach, we could not agree to views of such a nature with- out abandoning the foundation on which our Church is built ’ (p. I I).

These statements are witness to the following facts : ( I ) The Orthodox Eastern Church emphasises the

principle, ‘ There can be no communion with heretics.’ No one who denieth one of the doctrines taught by the Orthodox Church is admitted to the communion of that Church.

(2) This principle that there can be no communion with heresy is a fundamental principle on which the Orthodox Eastern Church is built.

(3) The Orthodox Eastern Church could not admit to communion any other Church which allowed fellow- ship to heretics.

(4) But the Church of England, whose idea of the Church differs wholly from the idea of the Orthodox Eastern Church, does admit to its communion men differing from each other in faith, i.e. heretics.

2 58

Constantinople and the Lambeth Conference

( 6 ) The Thirty-Nine Articles and the Prayer Book.

' In view of the fact that the work of union would be strongly advanced by the abolition of the wel1- known Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglican Con- fession, we thought it would not be offensive to propose their general abolition (p. 12).

' . . . I t was proposed to us by the Standing Committee that our similar Standing Committee should undertake to suggest what alterations in our opinion are necessary.

'As long as in England no separation between Church and State is made . . . it appears in fact that only a revision of these Articles will perhaps be possible. This revision, being invested with a competent authority, would evidently supply, in great measure, the place of a final abolition of the Articles . . .

' It is evident that such high estimation of the Prayer-Book, which affords much the more favour- able basis for co-operation and coming together, is very acceptable, the more so as it is steadily being revised and reformed ' (p. 13). These statements bear witness to the following

facts : ( I ) The Orthodox Eastern Church proposed to

abolish the Thirty-Nine Articles. ( 2 ) If this cannot legally be done, in view of the

Establishment of the Church of England, the Ortho- dox Eastern Church proposes a revision which shall be equivalent to abolition.

(3) The Standing Committee for Revision of the Lambeth Conference proposed that in this project of revision the Eastern Orthodox Church should under- take to point out what it considered the necessary revisions.

2 5 9

Blacuriars

C5 JUDGMENT ON THE SACRAMENTS O F T H E CHURCH OF

ENGLAND.

(a) The Sacraments in General. ' It should be noted here that those from Serbia

and Roumania and those from Athens in America insisted on the necessity that Ordination should be called a Sacrament. Those who spoke with us did not seem to find any difficulty on the basis of the definition of a Sacrament as a divinely appointed rite giving through visible signs the invisible Grace of the Holy Spirit.

' Something analogous we put forward in refer- ence to the other Sacraments (except Baptism and the Eucharist) formulating our proposition some- what thus : " Given that the Sacramental character of the five Sacraments is recognised on your part, it would be desirable that the Church of England should formulate definitely the number of the Sacraments, accepting the fact that they are of divine institution, in spite of the admitted superi- ority of two of them"' (p. 10). These statements bear witness to the facts : ( I ) That the Orthodox Eastern Church agrees with

the Church of Rome in accepting Seven Sacraments instituted by Jesus Christ.

( 2 ) That there can be no re-union with the Ortho- dox Eastern Church until the Church of England recognises and professes its acceptance of this Sacra- mental doctrine.

(b ) The Sacraments, in pariicatlar Baptism. ' First as to Baptism administered by English

priests, we could not accept its validity either sim- pliciter or by economy (taking the same position as

260

Constantinople and the Larnbeth Conference

the Committee from Greece and the other Orthodox Committees) . . . As to the observation made to us regarding the practice of the Russian Church, which does not re-baptize those who come from the Roman Church or Anglican, it was necessary to develop the arguments by which our Church was brought to the necessity, in 1756, of imposing the re-baptism of Roman Catholics, which was yet never strictly ob- served ' (p. 8).

These statements are a witness to the facts : ( I ) The Orthodox Eastern Church is consistent with

its exclusive claims (cf. C3) in looking upon all bap- tisms outside its fold as invalid. Members of the Church of Rome and of the Church of England are not recognised by the Orthodox Eastern Church as validly baptized.

(2) If the Church of England wishes to be re-united with the Orthodox Eastern Church, a necessary pre- liminary will be the unconditional baptism of all its members, even of its Hierarchy.

(3) We presume that, in the eyes of the Delegation, this invalidity of Baptism as administered outside the Orthodox Eastern Church really invalidates all other subsequent sacraments. But this is a deduction rather than a fact.

(c) Holy Orders, the Holy Eucharist, Confirmatiole. Holy Orders.--' The members of the Standing

Committee, where above this topic was dealt with, tried to convince us, drawing their arguments from the Book of Common Prayer, that from the dog- matic and liturgical point of view the Anglican Ordination is well established and that it bears all the marks of the Sacrament, although the use of this term is wanting in the ordinal and in the forms

261

BlacA$iars

of the other Sacraments, except Baptism and the Eucharist.

‘ . . . We did not think that we should yet ex- press an unreserved and personal opinion about this important question, deeming that it must still be examined among us, both for other reasons and on account of the known negative attitude of the Western Church, which we cannot pass by without testing and examination’ (p. 10).

The Holy Eucharist.--‘ As to the question of the Holy Eucharist . . . we thought we should repeat what we said, also regardfng the Sacrament of Chrism (Confirmation), seeing that the consecration of the gifts depends on the validity and canonicity of the Orders of the Celebrant.

‘We expressed the hope that the Anglican teach- ing regarding the Sacrament might be defined as far as possible by the characterisation of the Eucharist as a Sacrifice and Propitiation, and that there should be added at the same time to the form of its celebration the Invocation of the Holy Spirit which is necessary to the change of the gifts.

‘ We thought that to facilitate the matter we could declare that we would be satisfied with chaizge or ironsform by which the real change is indicated’

Confirmation (Chrism).-‘ We thought that we could not unreservedly make a declaration regard- ing its validity, as administered by an Anglican Bishop, so long as the complete validity and canonicity of the Anglican Hierarchy and Orders is not decided by us’ (p. 8). From these historic statements we have witness to

the facts : (I) The Orthodox Eastern Church does not recog-

nise the validity or canonicity of the Orders of the 262

(Pa 9).

c

Constuntinople and the Larnbeth Conference

Anglican Orders. It has not yet decided one way or the other.

(2) Its hesitation in admitting the validity of Angli- can Orders is partly due to the ' known negative attitude of the Western Church,' i.e. the Church of Rome.

(3) The Eastern Orthodox Church will admit the validity neither of the Holy Eucharist nor of Con- firmation as administered in the Church of England, whilst the validity and canonicity of Anglican Orders are still sub judice.

(4) Anglicans must define, as fa7 as possible (sic), the Holy Eucharist as a Sacrifice and a Propitiation; and thus explicitly unsay many doctrines of their spiritual forbears who changed the old rite into the new.

(5) The Holy Eucharist, as at present administered by Anglicans, is invalid, because the form of Conse- cration does not contain the Invocation of the Holy Ghost, i.e. the Epiclesis.

(6) The words of consecration make a real objective change in the elements of bread and wine. The bread is changed or dransformzd into the Body of Jesus; the wine is changed or transformed into the Blood of Jesus. Bread and wine are no longer present; seeing that they are changed or transformed.

# # # * #

We have endeavoured to set before our readers a plain, accurate summary of this historic Report. Even the meagre outline of its well considered and carefulIy worded statements will enable an ordinary student of English Church history to see that few equally momentous documents have been published in Eng- land for three centuries. For the moment we may be

263

BZac&iars

pardoned from withholding criticism of an ecclesias- tical document which is not meant for the Church of which we are members. But our interest in the great enterprise of re-union is so unquenchable that we venture, not controversially, but eirenically, to ask members of the Anglican Church the following ques- tions, which they alone can answer.

I. Do Anglicans consider that there is still hope of re-union, without submissioiz, to the Orthodox Eastern Church ?

2 . Do Anglicans admit that the Orthodox Eastern Church ‘ represents the ancient undivided Church ’ ?

3. Do Anglicans admit, or will they ever admit, that a Church not in communion with the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople is not a part of the true Church ? 4. Are Anglicans prepared to accept re-union with

Constantinople on condition of ‘ accepting the whoIe of her teaching, sharing canonically in her Sacraments and believing in her lawfully settled ecclesiastical principles ’ ?

5. Will -4nglicans admit that their view of the Church is fundamentally different from the view of the Orthodox Eastern Church? If so, are Anglican’s prepared to say that their view is wrong?

6. Are the prelates of the Church of England pre- pared to expel from her communion all whom the Orthodox Eastern Church would consider heretics- e.g. Arians, Nestorians, deniers of the Virgin Birth, of the Resurrection of the Body, of the Sacrifice and Propitiation of the Mass, of the validity of sacerdotal absolution, of the inspiration of the Bible, &c., &c.?

7. Are Anglicans-e.g. are the Archbishops of Canterbury and York-prepared to accept uncondi-

264

Constantinople and the Larnbeth Conference

tional Baptism at the hands of an Orthodox Eastern priest ?

8. Are Anglicans willing to acknowledge that their Communion Service has been invalid because there was no Epiclesis?

9. Are Anglicans willing to accept the future deci- sion of the Orthodox Eastern Church not only about the validity of their Baptism and Holy Eucharist, but also about their Holy Orders.

10. Are Anglicans, who are so humbly willing to approach the Patriarch of Constantinople, equally willing to approach the See of Peter and of Gregory, from whom the historic glories of Canterbury and Y ork have been derived ?

May God guide this humble band into the unity of His accepted Will !

VINCENT MCNABB, O.P.