Late last year Pope Paul VI made papal history by undertaking the longest journey ever made by a pope. He visited Manila (where he survived an assassination attempt) and flew on to Samoa. Then he spent four days in Australia and returned home via Indonesia, Hong Kong, and Ceylon. It was a long and exhausting journey for a seventy-three-year-old man.
Just how large the crowds were that greeted him in Australia is not easy to say. As one journalist put it, there was a funny sort of numbers game. Tour organizers, police, and the press gave divergent estimates of the numbers at most functions. They agreed that about 5,000 were waiting at the airport when the Pope arrived (50,000 had been predicted). But at a Mass held on the Randwick racecourse one estimate put the attendance at 250,000, another at 200,000 and yet another at 150,000. Whatever the number actually present at any function, however, hundreds of thousands more watched on television. There is no doubt that very many Australians took a deep interest in the visit.
Pope Paul made some notable pronouncements. He rebuked Australia for self-centeredness and materialism: “the temptation to be satisfied when the material means are fulfilled is one that confronts society when it reaches your standard of living.” He spoke up for the rights of our aboriginal people. He warned against isolationism.
He seemed sympathetic to the protests of modern youth, but for a reason most people would not have anticipated, namely, its criticism of the “permissive society.” But the Pope thought youth’s rejection of the commercialized and aggressive society something like a “ray of light.”
The visit was clearly meant to be a friendly one, and there was no attempt at polemics. On the contrary, one of the highlights was an ecumenical service in the Sydney Town Hall. The Pope and Anglican Bishop Garnsey gave short addresses, and parts were taken in the simple service of Bible reading and prayer by representatives of the
Churches of Christ, the Presbyterian, and the Orthodox Churches as well as Roman Catholics and Anglicans. Such a service had never previously been held in Australia, nor probably anywhere else.
Both speakers sounded the note of unity, and both referred to John 17. Bishop Garnsey spoke of the “earnest and honest conversation” between the Roman Catholic Church and the Australian Council of Churches, adding, “We believe that it is the Holy Spirit that is leading, sometimes driving us into this cooperation. It is not because we seek safety in a hostile world, not because it is nice and comfortable to be together. It is rather a search for truth, a search for renewal, a search for obedience, that will lead us out into costly service.”
The Pope also spoke of the cost. “History cannot be written overnight,” he said, “and the honest hesitations of sensitive consciences always demand our respect and understanding. There is no easy way. The reconciling work of our Lord was achieved through suffering and the Cross. The unity which the ecumenical movement strives to serve has to be bought at a similar price.”
This was a most impressive service. It formed a landmark in relations between Roman Catholics and the Protestants. It certainly gave heart to those working for the reunion of the sundered denominations.
But it may not be too much to say that most comment referred not to anything done at the service but to some who were absent. The Most Reverend Marcus Loane, Anglican archbishop of Sydney, announced some weeks before the service that he could not in conscience attend. His decision was received with understanding and sympathy by Roman Catholics and by Christian leaders generally. But it was harshly criticized by many members of the general public. The Baptist Church joined Archbishop Loane in refusing to attend.
Marcus Loane gave his reasons for staying away. “The Roman Catholic Church,” he wrote in his diocesan paper, “continues to adhere to certain dogmas which are totally alien to the whole character of the New Testament. It still holds that the Pope is the Vicegerent of Christ and the infallible Head of the Church on earth; that Tradition is of equal authority with Scripture as the guide and rule of faith; that Transubstantiation takes place when the priest offers the prayer of Consecration so that the bread and wine become the body and blood, the soul and divinity, of Christ; that the Mass is a sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead; that the Virgin Mary is a mediatrix whose intercession is necessary in order to procure God’s favour; and that justification before God depends on the works that we do as well as on our faith in what Christ has done. These are doctrines which still create lines of cleavage which it is impossible to ignore. They are radically inconsistent with the New Testament as the sovereign rule of faith as well as with the Reformation Settlement of the Church of England in the reign of Elizabeth I. And they are all summed up in the office which is held by the Pope.
“It is for this reason that one cannot pretend that the barriers have all disappeared. These are questions of truth which must be resolved before we can share in common worship or in unfettered fellowship.”
In the vigorous discussion provoked by these happenings, most of those interested in promoting ecumenism feel it a pity that the onward march to unity has thus been hindered. But very few seem to have faced the issues the archbishop raised.
Perhaps people think it is unwise to do anything to disturb the friendliness that increasingly marks relations between the churches. To have sectarian bitterness replaced by a cordial willingness to talk and even to pray together is certainly a great gain. But Christian unity cannot be built on nothing more than friendliness, as leaders in all the denominations know well enough.
No good purpose can be served by glossing over the issues Marcus Loane has raised. It may be possible to have another opinion about the wisdom of attending the ecumenical service. But there is no getting past the fact that the archbishop has drawn attention to big and important issues.
Sooner or later, someone must say to our Roman Catholic friends in all kindness: “Have you changed your opinion on any of the matters Archbishop Loane raised? If so, which and how? If not, where do we go from here?”
