tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post5775781532876171088..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: Q & A on Apostolic SuccessionFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-51816651103964357072009-11-29T22:27:10.752-05:002009-11-29T22:27:10.752-05:00I think Curate is merely trying to point out (if I...I think Curate is merely trying to point out (if I am reading him correctly) that the minster having "perfect" theology does not validate the sacraments. <br /><br />We need to admit that someone's inner intention can not be known, but the outer intention of the sacrament can be known by the liturgy involved.<br /><br />Maybe there is some confusion here about what we are talking about.<br /><br />TTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-27848855513826351982009-11-28T13:35:51.775-05:002009-11-28T13:35:51.775-05:00Thank you Gentlemen: I had absolutely forgotten th...Thank you Gentlemen: I had absolutely forgotten the phrase "private room." This man's comments had strained my credulity-as in, I could not believe my eyes as I read. Some arguments are bad because they are poorly thought out; and some do not even rise to that level.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-18973020851872268992009-11-28T09:59:20.232-05:002009-11-28T09:59:20.232-05:00Curate wrote:
"The RC argument against Ap. P...Curate wrote:<br /><br />"The RC argument against Ap. Parker is that since no-one outside of the consecrating group saw what happened in that private room,. . ." <br /><br />And what, pray tell, would lead you to believe that the consecration of an English archbishop would ever have been done in a "private room?" Especially as Elizabeth was politically astute enough to know just what her enemies and those of the English Church would make of such an act?<br /><br />I realize that there are, even among ourselves, those who accept the Roman 'myths' because most Anglicans do not take the time to read the old documents or the reports of those who have, but Elizabeth was more than willing to take the necessary steps to impose her will and her vision of the Church on those desiring to remake it in the continental model. One only has to understand the discipline she imposed upon her second archbishop or the tenacity with which she had the writers and publishers of the Marprelate Tracts hunted down, to know that she, if no other, saw to it that every detail of the rite of the ordinal was carried out and that publicly so that none in that period would be able to allege such trash as would later be done in the Nag's Head fable.<br /><br />Veriword: shigate<br />Veriword: thaerapCanon Tallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05182884929479435751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-38130224579272617042009-11-28T04:33:37.003-05:002009-11-28T04:33:37.003-05:00Curate wrote:
1. "The RC argument against A...Curate wrote:<br /><br />1. "The RC argument against Ap. Parker is that since no-one outside of the consecrating group saw what happened in that private room, and since they were all Calvinists, there is a grave doubt that they intended to perpetuate the AS, since the Reformed as a rule do not accept the AS."<br /><br />While the arguments Roman adherents have made against the validity of Abp. Parker's consecration are, when examined carefully, worthless, only one of them is as idiotic as Curate portrays them all to be. When he writes of a "private room", he can only be referring to the long-exploded "Nag's Head Fable", which no serious scholar today would deign to put forth.<br /><br />Parker was not consecrated in any private room but in the Chapel of Lambeth Palace, probably for reasons of convenience. And there was nothing objectively irregular about his consecration's taking place in what was, after all, his own church.<br /><br />As to the contention that his consecration was invalid because his consecrators were Calvinists, no Roman I have ever read has made that particular contention which, of course, would undercut Roman sacramental theology just as much as it would Anglican.<br /><br />2. "Worthiness implies both moral and formal worthiness. Therefore if a man does not have the AS he is unworthy. And yet, the unworthiness does not affect the orders being conferred, therefore orders are unaffected by the AS (OR NOT) of the Ordinary."<br /><br />This is so confused as to make no sense whatever. "Worthiness" as used in Article XVI has nothing whatever to do with apostolic succession; it refers to the subjective dispositions of the celebrant.<br /><br />Without apostolic succession, there is no minister of any sacrament other than baptism or matrimony, so of course the Article was referring primarily to the official ministers of the Church, all of whom are either in apostolic succession or are imposters.<br /><br />John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-28101269635126379352009-11-28T02:33:37.124-05:002009-11-28T02:33:37.124-05:00Yes. It clarifies that you are more confused than ...Yes. It clarifies that you are more confused than I had realized. Article XXVI is about wicked men, not about the continental Protestants who had no AS. The Laws of the Church of England were sufficient to make their position clear, and that Law required AS.<br /><br /><i>It is the RC view that takes away our assurance that the grace signed and sealed has in fact been conveyed to us, not the Article. I agree with the BCP.</i><br /><br />Really? Article XXVI is a statement by the Church of England that was in perfect accord with what the Church of Rome was also teaching. The words of that particular Article contain no point of dispute with Rome at all.<br /><br /><i>The RC argument against Ap. Parker is that since no-one outside of the consecrating group saw what happened in that private room, and since they were all Calvinists...</i><br /><br />They were Calvinists? That would have been news to them. Why then did they reject the Geneva Discipline, and, why did the Church of England, with the same Queen and ABC, eventually accept Richard Hooker as their spokesman?Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-38773532517165077662009-11-28T02:02:17.555-05:002009-11-28T02:02:17.555-05:00Rev. Hart, I think that either you have entirely m...Rev. Hart, I think that either you have entirely misunderstood my post, or I have entirely failed to communicate. I do not for one minute believe that right intent is necessary for a proper sacrament. Indeed, that is part of my argument. <br /><br />The sacraments are effective regardless of the worthiness of a minister! In RC and EO theology intent is vital for the transmission of the AS. According to them there must be three things: intent, right form of words, and the right material, such as water, bread and wine.<br /><br />The RC argument against Ap. Parker is that since no-one outside of the consecrating group saw what happened in that private room, and since they were all Calvinists, there is a grave doubt that they intended to perpetuate the AS, since the Reformed as a rule do not accept the AS.<br /><br />This point of intent is an important difference between RC and CoE theology. It is the RC view that takes away our assurance that the grace signed and sealed has in fact been conveyed to us, not the Article. I agree with the BCP.<br /><br />My argument is that if it it accepted that consecration/ordination is a sacrament, then the intent to convey the AS is neither here nor there.<br /><br />My further point concerns the worthiness of a minister. Worthiness implies both moral and formal worthiness. Therefore if a man does not have the AS he is unworthy. And yet, the unworthiness does not affect the orders being conferred, therefore orders are unaffected by the AS (OR NOT) of the Ordinary.<br /><br />Hope that this clarifies things.<br /><br />Warm regardsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-54904555997475242522009-11-27T21:35:11.022-05:002009-11-27T21:35:11.022-05:00Curate wrote that in “the past EO recognition of A...Curate wrote that in “the past EO recognition of Anglican orders, their argument rested upon the conviction that the consecration of Abp. Parker was valid because the proper intention was present. According to this article [XVI] the intention of the consecrators is irrelevant.”<br /><br />If he had read some of the other comments posted on this blog, he would have realized that the “intention” which concerned the EO theologians was the objective intention expressed by the wording of the rite concerned, not the subjective intention secreted in the minds of Bishops William Barlow, John Scory, Miles Coverdale, and John Hodgkins, at the time they participated in Parker’s consecration.<br /><br />Article XVI addresses something completely different. It deals with the question whether a minister, who has been properly ordained to his Office and who celebrates according to the Church’s approved rites, can nevertheless vitiate the efficacy of the Sacraments over which he presides because of his own personal state of sin or because of his subjective doubts, errors, or unbelief.<br /><br />The Article gives as its answer a resounding “No”.<br /><br />And how do we know that the minister in question must first have been properly ordained and must also have been using the Church’s authorized rites? Because anything else would have been contrary to law, i.e., a crime.<br /><br />John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-2048141013657735282009-11-27T18:27:18.667-05:002009-11-27T18:27:18.667-05:00(still answering Curate)
The words "... whic...(still answering Curate)<br /><br />The words "... which be effectual because of Christ's institution and promise," refer to the power and grace that are in operation through the sacraments. That would include the sacrament of conferring Holy Orders through the laying on of the bishop's hands-effectual whether or not the bishop may be secretly a wicked man. <br /><br />"It is evident unto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church; Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. Which Offices were evermore had in such reverend Estimation, that no man might presume to execute any of them, except he were first called, tried, examined, and known to have such qualities as are requisite for the same; and also by publick Prayer, with Imposition of Hands, were approved and admitted thereunto by lawful Authority." -From the Preface to the Ordinal<br /><br />That is <i>how</i> Christ's institution and promise are made effective and recognized by the Church. He uses the bishops ("...as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you." John 20:21).<br /><br /><i>An evil man in this context is an enemy of God and Christ, a man who has no intent to serve or glorify God. How such a man could have the intention to consecrate a bishop in the AS, for the purpose of ministering proper sacraments, is beyond the powers of my imagination.<br /><br />Applying this to the past EO recognition of Anglican orders, their argument rested upon the conviction that the consecration of Ap. Parker was valid because the proper intention was present. According to this article the intention of the consecrators is irrelevant. A sacrament derives its power from Christ's institution and promise, even in the event of its administration by an evil man.</i><br /><br />Well, let's suppose he is <i>completely</i> in rebellion against God. He could have no genuine Intention in baptism, communion, absolution, etc. By your argument people are not really baptized, a congregation has not really had communion, and sins have not really been absolved, etc. What a terrible situation! What can we do, if the secret intentions of a minister's heart are as important as the Sacramental Intention of the Church in which he administers. Thank God that no one has ever taught that the secret intention of the minster's heart is what matters. Always, the teaching is that Sacramental Intention is that of the Church, not necessarily of the man. <br /><br />Curate, you need to <i>begin</i> a study of sacramental theology. You are on a remedial level at best.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-22670569465353536492009-11-27T18:27:04.527-05:002009-11-27T18:27:04.527-05:00The reader who calls himself Curate has commented,...The reader who calls himself <b>Curate has commented</b>, and I consider the comment to be demonstration of the need for education. Therefore, using editorial privilege, I am going to post all of it, but provide answers to each point.<br /><br /><i>I think that Article XVI deals a blow to the idea of AS. It teaches that the efficacy of a sacrament is unaffected by the unworthiness of a wicked minister, because its power comes from the institution of Christ and his promise:<br /><br />"... which be effectual because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men."<br /><br />Note that they are effective without regard to the minister's AS! Thus the Anglican doctrine is that sacraments are valid by the power of Christ's institution and promise. Period.</i><br /><br />No Curate, you are quite wrong. This is speaking not about Apostolic Succession (AS), but about whether or not the man possesses godly character. We are assured of God's own working and grace even if we discover that a priest was living a debauched life in secret. <br /><br />Frankly, it is entirely irrelevant to the question of AS, just as it is irrelevant to the subject of other indelible sacraments (i.e. that the man also had been baptized and confirmed before he was ordained). You have tried to make an argument against AS, but have hit the wrong target; you have simply presented an argument against ordination. And, the argument is very poorly thought out. Inasmuch as the Article had not been published apart from the Book of Common Prayer, in which we find the Ordinal with its Preface, we can be certain that you have given it a spin, an unworthy spin, that does not rise to the level of an interpretation, not even the level of a bad interpretation. The context of the BCP as a whole simply rules out your spin.<br /><br />(to be continued)Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-75981142365261679632009-11-26T09:17:05.470-05:002009-11-26T09:17:05.470-05:00T wrote: "we have to admit that other catholi...T wrote: "we have to admit that other catholic Christians have questions (or worse) about them."<br /><br />But that says more about them and their view of the Church and the faith, than it does about us. Indeed, when they raise the questions after what they have done and what they have accepted - which has usually involved submission to them - one is entitled to question their good faith about anything and everything, including their very catholicity. When you move away from the teaching of the New Testament and the apostles, can you really still be either Catholic and Orthodox?Canon Tallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05182884929479435751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-47767626073696395062009-11-26T03:06:44.720-05:002009-11-26T03:06:44.720-05:00Bruce said
"I don't believe most of the ...<b>Bruce said</b><br /><br /><i>"I don't believe most of the Evangelical Protestant Churches have lost the essence of the Gospel. There's more unity than there can appear to be."</i><br /><br />There is truth in that. They share the same books, the same Bibles, the same teachers, the same music, the same attitudes generally and don't mind if a minister from another denomination visits and preaches in their pulpits or appears on a DVD in the family home. Not only that, their denominations more and more are mergers rather than splits (although that will always happen).<br /><br />TTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-29868254614658707412009-11-26T03:03:36.729-05:002009-11-26T03:03:36.729-05:00Fr Hart,
Good point. But, you and I might say th...Fr Hart,<br /><br />Good point. But, you and I might say the C of E never lost its ministry, but we have to admit that other catholic Christians have questions (or worse) about them.<br /><br />TTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-77789666076484105722009-11-26T01:10:37.238-05:002009-11-26T01:10:37.238-05:00The good news is that the C of E managed to recove...<i>The good news is that the C of E managed to recover its ministry after a number of hiccups...</i><br /><br />Recover? I say it was never lost.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-88184520300627518662009-11-25T10:57:30.210-05:002009-11-25T10:57:30.210-05:00"Short answer, yes -- absurdly counterintuiti..."Short answer, yes -- absurdly counterintuitive. ..... The fissipariousness of Protestantism began at the very outset of the Reformation and has only increased over time."<br /><br />I had to look up the definition of fissipariousness :-)<br /><br />I don't believe most of the Evangelical Protestant Churches have lost the essence of the Gospel. There's more unity than there can appear to be.<br /><br />It's absurdly counterintutive that the One Church described in the great councils has been split in geographic half for half the Christian era. But that's how it is.Brucenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-2427799376422009822009-11-25T03:35:26.074-05:002009-11-25T03:35:26.074-05:00John Hollister said:
"Perhaps the Continenta...John Hollister said:<br /><br /><i>"Perhaps the Continental Reformers should have done what properly-inspired electoral synods do today: refuse to elect any of the available nominees and call for a new writ of election and a new electoral synod which will, one hopes, produce either (a) a new slate of nominees, or (b) more complete discernment regarding those who are available."</i><br /><br />If only the Continental Reformation would have been that easy- with bulls and excommunications flying around it would have been hard to hold a unified synod at all. I think we can safely say that politics played a fatal role in putting to death any idea of an orderly synod that we might have today.<br /><br />When we read the statements and letters of the Reformers we get a picture that is a lot more chaotic and hostile on the Continent. The issue was at the time that no bishop would ordain anybody who the people wanted. Melancthon testifies of this when he wrote:<br /><br />"...when the regular bishops become enemies of the Church, or are unwilling to administer ordination, the churches retain their own right. [Because the regular bishops persecute the Gospel and refuse to ordain suitable persons, every church has in this case full authority to ordain its own ministers.] For wherever the Church is, there is the authority [command] to administer the Gospel. Therefore it is necessary for the Church to retain the authority to call, elect, and ordain ministers. And this authority is a gift which in reality is given to the Church..."<br /><br />I think we all have to live with the past to some degree, and Anglicans obviously have to live with the echo effects of the past, whether they occured on the Continent or in Britain when they approach the theology and practice of ordination and AS.<br /><br />The good news is that the C of E managed to recover its ministry after a number of hiccups, so for that all Anglicans should be grateful.<br /><br />Thanks for the reply.<br /><br />TTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-50973603269496150812009-11-25T01:25:22.200-05:002009-11-25T01:25:22.200-05:00Touche', Canon Hollister. We have at last foun...Touche', Canon Hollister. We have at last found his weakness, but who would have thought that it would have been French history?<br /><br />Alas! As much as I doubt the pope's infallibility, I was beginning to believe in Father Hart's.<br /><br />Put not your trust in princes nor in any child of man.Canon Tallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05182884929479435751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-16112892952995271492009-11-24T21:53:44.498-05:002009-11-24T21:53:44.498-05:00Fr. Hart asked, "Name a bishop known to have ...Fr. Hart asked, "Name a bishop known to have been an atheist back then [in the 18th Century]."<br /><br />Charles Maurice de Tallyrand-Perigord, Comte de Tallyrand-Perigord, Prince de Benevento, Bishop of Autun.<br /><br />It is said that the entire R.C. hierarchy of France can be traced through him.<br /><br />John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-34449273615462888002009-11-24T21:02:01.468-05:002009-11-24T21:02:01.468-05:00"And then there were the various bishops of t...<i>"And then there were the various bishops of the Roman Church in the 18th century who were known to be atheists. What could be said of their intention when it came to ordaining."<br /></i><br /><br />Name a bishop <i>known</i> to have been an atheist back then; for such a man in 18th century would have been deposed if the charge was proved; therefore, if this was the case it would have been unstated, private, and at worst generally rumored. But, even so, their indiviual intentions would not have been the issue: The Intention of the Church would have been the issue.<br /><br /><i>Article XXVI. Of the unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments.<br />LTHOUGH in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometime the evil have chief authority in the ministration of the word and sacraments; yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by His commission and authority, we may use their ministry both in hearing the word of God and in the receiving of the sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the sacraments ministered unto them, which be effectual because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.<br /> Nevertheless it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church that inquiry be made of evil ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally, being found guilty by just judgement, be deposed.<br /></i>Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-50303085727752126762009-11-24T14:01:48.616-05:002009-11-24T14:01:48.616-05:00The corrollary, which I often make (though aware o...The corrollary, which I often make (though aware of an exaggeration when I do) is that no one who wants to be a bishop should be.<br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-29599971772626120702009-11-24T13:45:39.919-05:002009-11-24T13:45:39.919-05:00"T" wrote, ".
This is of course th..."T" wrote, ".<br /><br />This is of course the pragmatic approach [to pick a bishop whom you can trust to pick the clergy you would want in your parish] but what happens when the available bishops are unworthy, heretical, or unwilling to heed the people and the Holy Spirit....?"<br /><br />Perhaps the Continental Reformers should have done what properly-inspired electoral synods do today: refuse to elect any of the available nominees and call for a new writ of election and a new electoral synod which will, one hopes, produce either (a) a new slate of nominees, or (b) more complete discernment regarding those who are available.<br /><br />Remember, any male of suitable age may be the one called by the Holy Spirit to lead a particular diocese -- as SS. Ambrose and Augustine of Hippo show, he need not be willing, and as St. Ambrose shows, he need not even be formally a Christian (yet).<br /><br />I have often thought the Church needs a "Society of SS. Ambrose and Augustine", the apostolate of which would be the identification, nomination, election, and consecration of men who do not wish to be bishops.<br /><br />John A. Hollister+ <br />"dedlypo"John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-77752284540571726732009-11-24T12:55:23.607-05:002009-11-24T12:55:23.607-05:00"And then there were the various bishops of t..."And then there were the various bishops of the Roman Church in the 18th century who were known to be atheists. What could be said of their intention when it came to ordaining."<br /><br />We're assuming something happended (actually a chain of many events none of which we witnessed) and that our salvation depends on it.Brucenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-73643012840633391162009-11-24T12:42:54.597-05:002009-11-24T12:42:54.597-05:00Curate:
The Calvinists in general rejected the ep...Curate:<br /><br />The Calvinists in general rejected the episcopate, but believed that their presbyters carried some sort of AS. They still do believe that, and blame can be laid on various western writers from previous centuries, as we have discussed.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-72534742731719299812009-11-24T08:45:26.400-05:002009-11-24T08:45:26.400-05:00John Hollister mentioned:
He has just tripped acr...John Hollister mentioned:<br /><br /><i>He has just tripped across the reason that each delegate to an electoral synod must remind himself or herself that the man who is elected Bishop at that synod will be the final voice in chosing that diocese's clergy, potentially for years to come. So pick a bishop whom you can trust to pick the clergy you would want in your parish.</i><br /><br />This is of course the pragmatic approach- but what happens when the available bishops are unworthy, heretical, or unwilling to heed the people and the Holy Spirit, as happened on the Continent during the Reformation?<br /><br /><i>It's the ecclesiastical equivalent of voting for the President who will pick the Federal judges you want to have shaping your children's lives....</i><br /><br />Any example from American politics can only further worry us. :-)<br /><br />Fr Hart mentioned:<br /><br /><i>About Patriarchates, it was a Reasonable idea simply for organization long ago. But, it is treated like a God-ordained and permanent structure, as if it is based on revelation.</i><br /><br />Exactly. The human arrangement has taken on a divine mask. People can do this with any matter pertaining to religion, whether it be an office of the ministry or a liturgy.<br /><br />TTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-72328965253070953332009-11-24T08:09:45.845-05:002009-11-24T08:09:45.845-05:00Fr Hart,
Actually, I thought that the non-episcop...Fr Hart,<br /><br />Actually, I thought that the non-episcopal ordinations in the RCC you refer to were done under the explicit licence of the Pope. There were at least 4 examples of this "privilege" being granted. Does this mean the RCC rejected or rejects the doctrine of Apostolic Succession? I think not.<br /><br />3 other points regarding the examples of the C of E recognising (but not practising) presbyteral ordinations:<br /><br />1. It was against the official law, strictly interpreted, demanding episcopal ordination for those not already priests which, as I understand it, was codified canonically or legally even <b>before</b> appearing also as the modification to the 1662 Preface to the Ordinal. <br /><br />2. However, it was tolerated because even many (not all) bishops accepted the theological argument that necessity could be pleaded for the Continental Reformers in relying on presbyteral succession, and that there were ancient precedents just permitting this. In other words, they took an approach similar to the Eastern Orthodox "recognition by economy". This was even the case for bishops who strongly criticised these Protestant Churches for lacking episcopacy and not doing enough to get it back.<br /><br />3. Amazingly, Eastern Orthodox theologians have suggested that non-episcopal orders could be remedied by incorporation via economy too.<br /><br />As for Abp Wake's approach, it should be noted he also tried to encourage Protestant Churches to recover episcopacy from the C of E, and, in the correspondence Dr Tighe referred to, also noted to Le Courayer (if my memory serves me correctly) how strongly the early reformed C of E bishops had defended episcopacy, its foundational origins and its importance.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-27366407414455728152009-11-24T06:40:15.540-05:002009-11-24T06:40:15.540-05:00Well, I think that St. Jerome was simply wrong, if...Well, I think that St. Jerome was simply wrong, if he thought that bishops were originally and ultimately the same thing as presbyters. St. Jerome's view on this matter unfortunately came to dominate the Latin West in the Middle Ages, but the only Early Christian writer who agreed with him in his own time or later was the obscure Constantinopolitan Arian named Aerius, who wrote ca. 360. Some also cite "Ambrosiaster" as lending partial support for this view.<br /><br />A good article about all this is Trevor Jalland's "The Doctrine of the Parity of Ministers," in *The Apostolic Ministry* ed. Kenneth E. Kirk (1946) -- a careful essay that tends to be overshadowed by Dom Gregory Dix's long and controversial essay on "The Ministry in the Early Church" in the same volume.<br /><br />On the opposite pole from St. Jerome is the view of Theodore of Mopsuestia, in his commentary on the Epp. to Timothy and Titus, who writes that while the apostles were alive the terms "episkopos" and "presbyter" applied to the same men holding the same office, over all of whom the apostles held authority -- but as the apostles reached the end of their lives and began to appoint successors to their own office and ministry (e.g., Timothy and Titus, and Clement in Rome*) these latter, deeming themselves unworthy of thre name "apostle," as they had not personally witnessed to the Resurrection, took for themselves the title of "episkopos" and left that of "presbyter" to those who had formerly been termed both "episkopos" and "presbyter."<br /><br />There are some problems with this view as well, but I think that they are far less pervasive and insuperable than those attributed to St. Jerome. I write "if" and "attributed to" with regard to St. Jerome's views because of this interesting analysis of St. Jerome's views which an Orthodox friend sent to me some time ago:<br /><br />http://wellofquestions.wordpress.com/2009/01/18/jerome-on-the-tri-fold-ministry/<br /><br />Interesting also is this more recent posting discussing the views of the Anglican scholar Frank Cirlot on the same subject:<br /><br />http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/apostolic-succession-1-presbyter-bishop/William Tighehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634494183165592707noreply@blogger.com