Talk:Episcopalian church governance

From Academic Kids

This is a bit outside of my main areas of knowledge. Please repair errors of fact or nuance. Mkmcconn 06:01 Oct 22, 2002 (UTC)

I've made some edits based on my understanding of conciliar hierarchy and apostolic succession; hope I've remained NPOV, please correct if not.

I do have a question about this sentence:

It was this practical eminence in the East that was acknowledged, first by the Council of Constantinople 381, and then ecumenically by the Council of Chalcedon in 451, so that the Patriarch (pre-eminent father) of the church under New Rome's domain was for all practical purposes the Bishop of Constantinople.

I had always thought that the Council of Constantinople was the Second Ecumenical Council, and that Chalcedon was either the third or fourth ecumenical council. The above seems to imply that Chalcedon was ecumenical, but Constantinople was not. Are these different interpretations of the scope of those councils, or... ? Wesley 15:48 Oct 22, 2002 (UTC)

I'm unsure, but it appears to be an issue of contention, because Rome had no representative at Constantinople. The only article (article 38) that Rome raised particular objection to, was concerning the authority of Caesar to grant primacy within his realm. So, apparently (and I'm not completely sure how this works, in a Roman Catholic understanding), article 38 over-reaches the claim of ecumenicity by making Christ subordinate to Caesar, and the whole church subordinate to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, overturning (as Rome sees it(?)) the Apostolic order. I might be overstating things due to lack of thorough understanding. But, it does appear from reading the scorching rebukes by Pope Gregory I, that this is basically correct (or at least, a perverse reading of statements to that effect). I will certainly yield to Catholics and Orthodox on any of these points, who are bound to speak with better familiarity and nuance. Mkmcconn

Based on quick online research, the Catholic Encyclopedia seems to acknowledge it as an ecumenical council because its decrees were eventually accepted in both East and West, even though there was no delegate from Rome present. See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm. I have heard that there are cases when Rome accepted a council but took exception to one or two canons within it, and the article 38 you mention may very well be an example of that; in fact, this statement seems to bear that out:

The council's dogmatic authority in the western church was made clear by words of Pope Gregory I: "I confess that I accept and venerate the four councils (Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon) in the same way as I do the four books of the holy Gospel...." The bishop of Rome's approval was not extended to the canons, because they were never brought "to the knowledge of the apostolic see". Dionysius Exiguus knew only of the first four -- the ones to be found in the western collections. Pope Nicholas I wrote of the sixth canon to Emperor Michael III: "It is not found among us, but is said to be in force among you". (http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum02.htm) Context shows that the additions made to the Nicene Creed are the main thing that Gregory I was accepting.

Looking at the canons of the council itself at http://www.orthodoxa.org/orthodoxie/droit%20canon/2econcileGB.htm, it appears that Constantinople did not replace Rome in honor, but was given the place of second highest honor after Rome. I believe this is what I remember hearing elsewhere as well. The issue with Rome was really whether the Pope could overrule all the other patriarchs, or whether things needed to be worked out and agreed upon in council. The filioque clause dispute wound up being the final straw, when neither side would back down. Or at least that's how I understand the Orthodox perspective, and I know that some Orthodox would see it in at least slightly different light. Wesley 16:25 Oct 22, 2002 (UTC)

It's a very interesting history, not easy to interpret. I notice that the Catholics place blame not on people, but on the difficulties caused by language. I do think that you are right, that the Orthodox now preserve the same understanding as Constantinople then: that Rome is not replaced or demoted, nor is apostolic authority replaced. But, Gregory (at least) and perhaps Leo before him, were concerned that this is what had been done in principle even if not in spirit, and that the groundwork had been laid for the appearing of the antichrist (at least, I think that's what can be concluded from sentences such as those following, from among many, many like them):

Gregory to Constantina Augusta:

But, when this my brother with new presumption and pride calls himself universal bishop, having caused himself in the time of our predecessor of holy memory to be designated in synod by this so proud a title, though all the acts of that synod were abrogated, being disallowed by the Apostolic See,- ... etc.

Gregory to Sabinianus:

I suspect, however, that thou hast not all considered with what cunningness this has been done by our aforesaid brother John. For it is for this purpose that he has done it; that the Lord Emperor might be obeyed, and so he [John] himself might seem to be confirmed in his vanity, or that I might not obey him [the emperor], and so his [the emperor's] mind might be irritated against me.

Gregory to John the Faster, Bishop of Constantinople:

For all that was foretold is come to pass. The king of pride is near, and (awful to be said!) there is an army of priests in course of preparation for him, inasmuch as they who bad been appointed to be leaders in humility enlist themselves under the neck of pride. ... For, since the pride of the devil was the origin of our perdition, the humility of God has been found the means of our redemption. ... What, then, can we bishops say for ourselves, who have received a place of honour from the humility of our Redeemer, and yet imitate the pride of the enemy himself? Mkmcconn

Roman Catholic view of Orthodox apostolicity

I don't think that the RCC holds that it exclusively has the apostolic succession. The RCC does recognize the sacramental validity of the ordinations of the orthodox churches, including the sacramental validity of the bishops of the orthodox churches, which would make them legitimate successors of apostles. The contention then is not on the apostolicity of the orthodox bishops but instead on the schism between the two churches. Pmadrid 05:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)