Just got catholic theologian Francis Sullivan's book From Apostles to Bishops, and here are a few excerpts from the introduction and first chapter to wet your appetite.
"[Christian scholars both catholic and protestant] agree, rather, that the historic episcopate was the result of a development in the post-New Testament period, from the local leadership of a college of presbyters, who were sometimes also called bishops (episkopoi), to the leadership of a single bishop... Scholars differ on details, such as how soon the church of Rome was led by a single bishop, but hardly any doubt that the church of Rome was still led by a group of presbyters for at least a part of the second century." (viii)
Distinguishing between the catholic and protestant views of the development of the episcopacy in the early church, Sullivan writes: "The 'catholic' view, on the contrary, will see some developments in the early Church as so evidently guided by the Holy Spirit that they can rightly be recognized as of divine institution." (7) Sullivan rightly recognizes that the Protestant view is that outside of the New Testament whatever helpful and wise developments may occur remain nevertheless human and subject to correction or alteration in accordance with Scripture.
"Admittedly the Catholic position, that bishops are the successors of the apostles by divine institution, remains far from easy to establish. It is unfortunate, I believe, that some presentations of Catholic belief in this matter have given a very different impression... To speak of "an unbroken line of episcopal ordination from Christ through the apostles" suggests that Christ ordained the apostles as bishops, and that the apostles in turn ordained a bishop for each of the churches they founded, so that by the time the apostles died, each Christian church was being led by a bishop as successor to an apostle. There are serious problems with such a theory of the link between apostles and bishops." (13)
All for now.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Serious Problems
Posted by Toby at 4:10 PM
Labels: Church Polity, history, Sola Scriptura, Why I Won't Convert
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
Does he interact with Eucharist Bishop Church? I suppose that Zizoulas doesn't exactly fall in the "Christian scholars" you list since the Orthodox aren't really Catholic or Protestant, but Zizioulas strongly disagreed with that point. (In fact the thesis of his book is that the Church (which is wholly present in each city) is formed by the one Eucharist presided over by the one Bishop, and was as far back as we can see.)
But Zizzy says that the Eucharist is what makes the church, not a particular habit of the bishop. And as Kesich shows in Meyendorf's Primacy of Peter, the early church bishops were local pastors, so it isn't a problem to say that the Eucharist was presided over by the one Bishop. In many Protestant churches that happens every week.
It seems that Sullivan's point is that the Apostles were not ordaining bishops in the Roman sense of the term. There were not heads of dioceses with a special infused grace that the other pastors lacked.
Steven
But Zizioulas' point is a bit more involved than that. His point is that each city was the fullness of the Church because they received the Eucharist together in one assembly, with one person presiding.
On his reading one of the most significant changes in Church history was the emergence of the parish when the pastoral and Eucharistic duties of the Bishop were delegated to the Presbyters (by this time a distinction had emerged so Presbyter wasn't just another way of saying Bishop). But the Presbyters were then almost sub-Bishops. The Pastor couldn't be everywhere at once, so he ordained people to act with his authority under him.
But this still (if true) raises problems for Protestants because the Protestant pastors are Presbyters in revolt against their Bishop, or not even ordained as Presbyters. That is to say, on Zizioulas' reading, Protestants are schismatic. We seek to establish a different Eucharist to the Bishops, which is to say, we seek to establish a separate church.
I'm not sure how or if this relates to Sullivan's point. Zizioulas agrees they weren't heads of dioceses (in the modern sense of the word), that's indeed his point. But he does think that they had a special, divinely established role that the deacons (or later Presbyters) lacked.
The Protestant response would simply be that the Eucharist is not created by the bishop, but rather the Holy Spirit, and so each Eucharistic community is the fullness of the catholic church.
The hang-up is the equivocation on "bishop."
Importing later definitions of bishop into earlier people who lead churches is the problem. Local pastors are not simply delegated bishops dependent on the first bishop for their power. They are actually bishops themselves, as they represent the people, of whom all are priests.
The Protestant response would simply be that the Eucharist is not created by the bishop, but rather the Holy Spirit, and so each Eucharistic community is the fullness of the catholic church.
But schism is a real problem. The Novatians aren't Christians. Or at least aren't Catholic. And if Zizioulas represents St. Cyprian accurately their problem is precisely that they have separated themseves from the Biship, and thus from the Eucharist, setting up in his place a false Bishop, and thus a false Eucharist and a false Church which is to say a flase Christ.
So anyway, I'm not sure how that position stacks up against St. Cyprian, nor how it can account for schism, and the false Church created by schism.
Importing later definitions of bishop into earlier people who lead churches is the problem. Local pastors are not simply delegated bishops dependent on the first bishop for their power. They are actually bishops themselves, as they represent the people, of whom all are priests.
Have you read Eucharist, Bishop, Church? This doesn't seem to the point.
Matt,
One can be schismatic against the gospel, as well as against the weaker members of the body.
As to the point about bishops, I am disagreeing with the stipulated definition and saying that any minister, as representative of the people, is a proper bishop.
One can be schismatic against the gospel, as well as against the weaker members of the body.
I'm not sure what you are saying. If you are saying that both heresy and schism are real problems, fine. Say so. Don't use circumlocutions like "schismatic against the gospel" when you mean "heretical".
And anyway, no one disagrees that heresy is a problem.
So as far as I can tell, I asked "but if schism is splintering from the Church, how does your account explain schism?" and you replied "you can be a heretic or a schmistic against the weaker members of the body." Unless I'm completely missing something, this doesn't even begin to address my question.
As to the point about bishops, I am disagreeing with the stipulated definition and saying that any minister, as representative of the people, is a proper bishop.
But I'm trying to get some interaction with Zizioulas. If his arguments are the topic, your comment about Protestant ecclesiology is not on point. Yes, granted Protestants disagree with Zizioulas. But simply asserting a disagreement doesn't interact with him at all.
Zizzy was one commentator among several invoked to discuss the historicity of bishops. I cited others. Toby was concerned with his own source.
I actually cited another Orthodox writer who disagreed with Zizzy's claims to the nature of bishop, and so I could agree with the idea that the bishop presides over the Eucharist without needing to also confess that the bishop possesses an inherent grace that other supposedly "delegated" representatives do not have, and thus deprived, lack the ability to perform a proper Eucharist. If they can properly preside, then the Eucharist is valid and the church is genuine.
Your distinction between heresy and schism is also loaded, and I find your criticism of my supposed circumlocution to be specious. Heresy originally meant schism (check 1 Cor. 11:19), and so it is entirely possible for a body to break away from the true gospel, thus cutting themselves off from the Church. The gospel is the locus of unity, along with charity which really is the lost "mark" of the Church.
When you ask how I can account for schism, you actually mean to ask how I can account for separation from a certain visible polity or bureaucracy which claims priority over individual congregations. This question assumes a conclusion that I will not grant.
Steven
Zizzy was one commentator among several invoked to discuss the historicity of bishops. I cited others. Toby was concerned with his own source.
Well, I asked whether Sullivan interacts with Zizioulas as they seem to be saying something contrary things. You replied by saying they are saying consistent things, but didn't show an understanding of the fullness of Zizioulas' point. So I tried to flesh out his point a little for you. Your response seemed to say schism isn't a problem and glibly dismissed Zizioulas. So I asked you if you what schism is on your reading, and if you have read Eucharist Bishop Church. Your response to the first question was to say "heresy is a problem too." and to the second to ignore it completely. So again, what is schism? And how does that relate to St. Cyprian's understanding?
And have you read Eucharist Bishop Church?
Whatever the definition of heresy is, I don't see how saying "yeah, well heresy is a problem too" answers the question "what is schism"?
The gospel is the locus of unity, along with charity which really is the lost "mark" of the Church.
If you said the gospel is a locus of unity, I don't see how anyone could disagree with you. But otherwise you seem either to be defining "gospel" so broadly as to be useless, or are making ridiculously unsupportable claims. Baptism isn't a locus of unity? The Eucharist isn't a locus of unity? "One Faith, One Faith, One Faith." "For we being many are one body and one gospel for we believe the one gospel"?
This is just silly. Everyone believes heresy destroys the Church. There's no reason for you to try and prove it. The discussion is not whether heresy is a problem, but whether schism is, and what constitutes it. An issue you have virtually ignored, except to say that I and Zizioulas don't understand it. (Not that you've tried to understand me, or, I believe, read Eucharist Bishop Church.)
When you ask how I can account for schism, you actually mean to ask how I can account for separation from a certain visible polity or bureaucracy which claims priority over individual congregations. This question assumes a conclusion that I will not grant.
I'm glad you understand my position I've never articulated as I clearly don't. Maybe if you had read Eucharist Bishop Church we could have a profitable discussion rather than you just presupposing to know what I believe.
A new low point for you Matt.
Steven
I'm feeling really talked down to by you. I asked you what schism was, and asked if you could interact with St. Cyprian. Rather than answer the question "lots of Catholics think schism is something like X, but in fact it's something like Y" or "St. Cyprian said X and I more or less agree, but it has to be qualified in such and such a way" you told me that heresy was a sort of schism. Fine. But that isn't my question.
And then you insulted me and talked down to me "when you asked what you really meant was..."
And then when I call you out on it, rather than just apologizing, you insult me.
What's up?
Matt,
I believe that it is you who is regularly incapable of holding a two-way conversation with those you disagree with. I've tried more than I should have, that's for sure.
It is you who are insulting me by claiming that I haven't read the book which I'm commenting on, which is, in fact, an accusation that I am a liar.
You also mistake my pointed and firm statements, which are simply things that I hold to be truly true, for "talking down" to you. How might one talk down to another online, if not explicitly so? One doesn't hint or accent on the internet. It simply isn't possible to decipher this with any accuracy, and I haven't intended any such rhetorical posturing here.
These terms we are discussing are not being used unequivocally in Prot/RCC conversations, and so I'm not willing to just go along without tackling those foundational differences. If that's frustrating, I'm sorry.
So sure, I think you are wrong, and I will say so, but that isn't the same thing as thinking you are dumb or in need of an e-smack down.
In summary, you've been overly reactive, disrespectful (This is almost always the case though. Ask your Moscow friends what they think. I've asked a couple to make sure I'm not misreading the situations.), and finally just plain nasty.
Steven
I did tell you how you were talking down to me. I asked a question in good faith, but rather than answer it you presumed to know what I really meant. "When you asked X you really meant to ask Y." That's talking down to me. Who are you to tell me what I really meant to do? Who are you to tell me what I believe?
And it's just insulting to pretend I'm talking about something else when I told you it was precisely this that was offensive.
Regarding the question of whether you have read Eucharist Bishop Church:
Internet discussion happens on all sorts of levels. You could have been (legitimately) commenting on Zizioulas from secondary sources. And your very first post seemed to completely miss the whole thesis of the book--it seemed like you were reducing him to "Eucharist makes the Church". Maybe it was just a syntax thing, or maybe you took my simple question as an argument. Anyway, I think it was a legitimate question. You didn't claim to interact directly with the book, you left no indication on what level you were interacting with his ideas, and your interaction seemed very shallow to me.
That said, I shouldn't have supposed you hadn't read it, and I am sorry I did.
Regarding Catholic/Orthodox and Protestant impasses: I wouldn't have minded if you had said "I understand schism in a very different way from how Catholics and Orthodox do. I think it's something more like this." But you didn't. You dodged my inquiry by bloviating. Certianly schism (or schism proper, or schism as distinguished from heresy-schism) is something and is bad. If I were to lead twenty people from Trinity and start my own church I'd have started a schism, even if I had no doctrinal difference with Trinity. If I ask about this sort of thing, and you tell me heresy is a sort of schism, you aren't answering the question. If you use four words to say heresy, and another seven to say schism proper, you're bloviating in addition to dodging the question. It's not that you said "this issue is a fundamental divide between Protestants and Catholics" it's that you precisely did not but rather ducked and hid behind mere words.
Post a Comment